Sometimes occupying this weird and quiet little corner of the internet makes us feel like the 52 hz whale, the loneliest whale in the world. Other times, we imagine ourselves more like cookiecutter sharks, vicious and disturbing creatures taking little bites out of the NFL's belly. While we occasionally question why we continue to put up these demented posts, there does seem to be a shark-like compulsion to continue moving forward. So, much like we did last year, and in the years before that, we'll just keep swimming along as we take a look at this year's crop of outside pass rushers.
We've been a bit busy lately, which has slowed down our progress in examining this year's prospects. Perhaps too much our our time has been invested in trying to arrange a parade to march Courtney Upshaw out of town. His impending departure absolutely fills us with joy, though it doesn't appear to have infected the other nearby sports fans with the same sort of enthusiasm. That has left just Reilly and myself to construct our parade float, artistically depicting Upshaw's athletic ability in the form of a papier-mache tree stump.
It's fair to say that we have never been fans of Upshaw. We've expected him to turn into a dismal failure for quite a while now. The odd thing is, that while his performance would seem to have confirmed our initial assessment of him, the locals have tended to be much more forgiving of his shortcomings than we ever would have imagined. The argument they raise in his defense consistently seems to refer to his supposed ability to "set the edge", as they say.
This has made us curious about how people can see the silver lining in a bad situation. After all, what does "setting the edge" really mean, other than "he is a fairly immobile/unmovable lump, who opponents could potentially trip over"? While we certainly wouldn't want to deny that having the ability to hold your ground is a worthwhile trait in a defensive linemen, it doesn't suggest that a player is terribly dynamic or impactful, if that is all they are really doing. Surely, this sort of "stand in one place and don't fall down" skill set can be accomplished fairly easily, can't it?
So, let's pretend that we decided that an unexceptional lump-like presence, similar to what Courtney Upshaw offered, was a perfectly acceptable outcome from one of our defensive ends or outside linebackers. Like Upshaw, this imaginary player would not need to show any real ability to drop into coverage. Also, like Upshaw, we would feel no great need for this player to reach the quarterback more frequently than a fat man touches his toes. We also would have very limited expectations that this player would be able to pursue running backs to the sideline. Nope, we just want a guy who can occasionally make a tackle when an opponent runs straight into his waiting arms. How the Ravens managed to find such a rare gem with just a mere 2nd round pick is a bit amazing.
Then, while contemplating Upshaw's glorious accomplishments, a thought crossed our mind. If this is all we want out of our DE/OLB, why not just put one of the team's defensive tackles on the field, in Upshaw's place. Would he be any less likely to match Upshaw's incredible 7 defensed passes over the past 4 years? Or what about the 5 sacks Upshaw produced during the same period of time? Would a typical 3rd string defensive tackle likely be any less stout against the run? It may sound a bit stupid, but we even think the team could have put a random undrafted nose tackle on the field, and there would have been very little difference in the actual outcome. It's not like such a player would have been sacrificing any sort of athleticism at the position, because Upshaw really possessed none in the first place.
Yet, despite our complaints about Upshaw, a surprisingly significant portion of local fans seem willing to defend him. The Ravens have put him on the field for every single game since the day he was drafted, even listing him as the starter in 52 games (81.2% of the time). It is...confusing. All we can really figure is that this is an amazing testament to the power that a player's draft status has on the opportunities that are presented to him. We also have little doubt that we still have not seen the end of this peculiar and vexing anomaly. Some other team will surely employ him, though it is hard to guess whether they will be as forgiving.
Oh well, I suppose that's all we have to say on this little rant, so let's move on to this year's crop of future disappointments.
As always, we will list the player's Kangaroo Score
(our measure of lower body power), and their Agility Score (which comes
from the short shuttle drill and the 3-cone drill). The scores are
shown in the form of how many standard deviations that a player is
above, or below, the average result for a player in their position
group. The ideal prospect, in our opinion, would have a Kangaroo Score
that is at least one standard deviation above average, at least
an average Agility Score, and be averaging about 15 tackles for a loss
in his final two college seasons. Of course, in the end, we often have
to make some compromises here.
While we know that many people prefer to take a more subjective approach to judging NFL prospects, we generally feel that produces much more erratic and undependable results. To illustrate this, we had the computer play a little game to demonstrate what players it would have selected over a ten year period, under fairly restrictive guidelines. We then made a separate post to show how this compared to the results of a select group of NFL teams, during the same period. While there is no way to guarantee success, we do think the more objective approach of the computer does tend to improve a team's chance of a positive outcome. Maybe you will agree, or maybe you won't.
We should also mention that while we tend to use the Kangaroo Score as a general tool to capture a player's explosiveness and power, there are are some times where this runs into potential issues. Particularly with a position group like this, where the weights of the players covers a broader range than in most position groups (perhaps from 235 pounds to 285 pounds). So, we sometimes need to clarify things a bit more. Generally, lower body power and explosiveness go hand in hand to a large degree. Sometimes they don't. The discrepancies that arise are all a product of how we value mass, and sometimes we need to sort things out a bit more, in order to get a better picture of how a player is likely to perform.
For instance, you could have a heavier player, say a 275# defensive end, with a Kangaroo Score of 1.500. That would suggest a rather impressive amount of lower body power. Despite that, this player might also have a non-weight adjusted explosiveness result of perhaps 0.500, which is fine but not nearly as impressive. This is a player that we might expect to be stout against the run, and perhaps capable of pushing his opposing blocker backwards, but not what we might consider a speed rusher.
At the same time, you might have a smaller 240 pound defensive end, with a mildly respectable Kangaroo Score of 0.500. This player's relative lack of mass is not doing them any favors. Still, this player might have a non-weight adjusted explosiveness result of 1.500, which would be exceptional. We would expect this player to be a bit less likely to hold his ground in the running game, but have much more of an explosive first step when rushing the passer. This is perhaps a player who is more likely to fit the mold of a speed rusher, who can get to the quarterback very quickly (assuming that other physical traits don't hamper him).
This is just an issue that tends to come up a bit more frequently with this group of players, and something that we will try to make additional comments about. We wouldn't say that one type of player is necessarily better than the other, just that there is more than one way to skin a cat. The way these results can tilt things in one direction or another just helps to better understand how a player might succeed, and perhaps how they should best be utilized.
This list will continue to be modified/updated as new data and
prospects come to my attention. I don't plan to list every prospect
here, but instead will just show the ones that I think are interesting
for either good or bad reasons. Last Updated: 4/16/2016
Joey Bosa, DE/OLB, Ohio State
Kangaroo Score: 0.763 Agility Score: 1.064 Avg TFL: 18.5
Based on our normal methods for doing this, Bosa is someone we should probably be excited about. When examining his athletic traits and college production, this is someone that the computer would allow us to select in the 1st round. Still, there are some odd details and concerns about Bosa that make us scratch our heads a bit. His Kangaroo Score suggests that he should have the lower body power to bull rush, as well as stand up against the opponent's running game. The score above actually might underestimate his power a bit, as the results from his broad jump would produce a result of 1.601, which is a significant improvement on his overall result. Then we have his agility results, which are also really quite good, especially for someone of his size. The one odd thing about his results was what happened when we removed mass as a factor. Suddenly, his lower body explosiveness was appearing to be just "okay", with a result that came in between 0.208 and 0.823. That result is a tad lower than what we normally see in most of the NFL's top level pass rushers, but not necessarily a significant problem. These results would suggest that he is probably more of a bull-rushing torque machine, and less of a blow past the tackle at the snap kind of player. That also probably fits with what we have seen of Bosa in the few games we have watched. The most similar athletic comparison we can make, is probably Kyle Vanden Bosch. Yes, we feel a bit awkward about making a white-guy-to-white-guy comparison. Then we come to Bosa's statistical production in college, which is a whole other can of worms. Because of the recent successes of the Ohio State football program, it is a bit more difficult to tell who is benefiting from being in an potentially advantageous situation. In 2014, we would say that Bosa's production was quite good, though still perhaps a hair short of what we typically find with top level pass rushers. In 2015, we run into much bigger problems. Bosa took a rather severe tumble in production, and we don't have an adequate explanation for why that is. Some people will say that it was caused by Bosa being double-teamed more often, but we're not so sure about that. Considering that his team was actually improving the rate that they were getting to the opposing quarterback (going from an 8.3% sack rate in 2015, to an 8.4% in 2015), and that Bosa was frequently benefiting from being able to go after the opponent's right tackle, his slump bothers us a bit. We'd also say that while Bosa appears to be active against the run, he was probably making about 10% fewer plays in this area than we would really like to see. Admittedly, part of the reason we are being so critical of Bosa is because of some of the similarities he possesses to another former Ohio State player, Vernon Gholston. Like Bosa, Gholston was an extremely gifted athlete whose market share of his team's pass rushing success was less impressive than his stat sheet might make you suspect. You could say, that for as gifted as Bosa/Gholston appeared to be physically, we actually think they both should have been even more productive in college, especially considering the beneficial environment they found themselves in. Maybe that seems like nitpicking. Despite all of this criticism, we still think Bosa is probably one of the better pass rushing prospects in this draft, and worth a 1st round pick. We just aren't certain that he should go in the top 5.
Shaq Lawson, DE, Clemson
Kangaroo Score: 0.700 Agility Score: 0.544 Avg TFL: 18.5
What can we really say about Lawson? Well, he did produce the sort of good but not great athletic results that would allow the computer to give him a 1st round grade. Lawson also had the sort of statistical production that would merit a 1st round grade from the computer. So, why are we feeling so underwhelmed by him as a draft prospect? Of the three outside pass rushers that the computer gave a 1st round grade to this year, Lawson was the one that seems to bother us the most. We could complain that he was a bit of a late bloomer, who only really produced to a significant level in his final collegiate season. We could point to the way that Clemson seems to currently be able to turn anyone into a productive pass rusher, similar to what Missouri has done in the past few years. Along with this, there is the concern that Lawson's numbers in 2015 might have been inflated due to the overall success of the Clemson pass rush, which lessened the extent to which opponents could focus on stopping just him. Really though, Reilly and I were mainly disturbed by how little excitement we felt when we watched him play, and we think this might be related to a potential athletic deficiency that gets ignored in the scores we listed above. While Lawson has respectably adequate agility, and his Kangaroo Score suggests he has good lower body power (which could be rated at an even higher 1.202 if we only looked at his broad jump), there is still something missing. When we remove weight as a factor from his vertical and broad jumps, to just look at his explosiveness, his results fall somewhere between 0.264 and 0.655. Those aren't bad results, but they also aren't particularly exceptional. In the end, this creates a fairly specific sort of athletic profile. It would suggest that Lawson is probably stout enough to hold up against the run, as well as having the power to occasionally push offensive tackles around, but he probably isn't going to consistently explode past/through the blocker to create the sort of quick sacks that we associate with some of the more exciting pass rushers. None of this should necessarily change the grade that the computer gave him, of alter our expectations that he can become a good player, we just suspect that he might be a bit less of a dynamic player than the top NFL players at his position. We're leaning towards the idea that his best position might be as a left end in a 4-3 defense, since we think his physical traits would probably match up better against the types of athletes you typically find among right tackles.
Leonard Floyd, OLB, Georgia
Kangaroo Score: 0.829 Agility Score: 0.201 Avg TFL: 9.5
With Leonard Floyd, we have a very different sort of prospect than what we see among the other players that are generally projected to be taken in the 1st round. Athletically, he is actually kind of interesting, and his overall results would allow the computer to give him a 1st round grade. Unfortunately, when the computer looks at his statistical production, the best assessment it can give Floyd is a 6th round grade. That imbalance between physical potential, and proven productivity is a huge problem for us. As a pass rusher, he simply never reached any of the benchmarks that we generally associate with top level players at his position. His athletic results also point in a different direction than many of the other prospects for this year. While he appears to have perfectly adequate agility, and above average lower body power, his explosiveness (when weight isn't factored into it) appears to be his best trait. Here, his result would be about 1.773 standard deviations above average, which is pretty exceptional. His results would suggest to us that his best opportunity might come as an OLB in a 3-4, or perhaps even in a 4-3, where he could be positioned further outside, in order to try to explode past the offensive tackle rather than bull rushing through him. Based on the little we have seen of him, our observations seemed to line up with the computer's suspicions. He does appear to be less inclined to try to physically maul his opponents. While some people have talked about adding weight to his relatively slim 6'6" and 244 pound frame, we think that could be a bit of a complicated proposition. That added mass shouldn't really improve his Kangaroo Score, but it should reduce his agility and explosiveness to some degree. Overall, we don't think that would be a great idea. We also have some concerns about the fact that Floyd will already be turning 24 this upcoming September, and the possibility that his Georgia teammate Jordan Jenkins might present better value as a draft pick. While Floyd is a somewhat interesting physical specimen, and has the physical traits to perhaps exceed our conservative expectations, the computer would suggest that his overall results present too much risk relative to where he is expected to be selected.
Noah Spence, DE/OLB, Eastern Kentucky
Kangaroo Score: 0.213 Agility Score: 0.060 Avg TFL: 18.5*
Reilly and I really have no idea what to make of Noah Spence. Based on the little we have seen of him, our lying eyes thought he looked fairly impressive. Of course, these things are a bit hard to judge when he was typically playing against such a low level of competition. Athletically, there was little to complain about with his results, but also little to praise. His numbers were pretty much average across the board. While his Kangaroo Score doesn't suggest that he has the sort of lower body power we typically like to see in these sorts of prospects, when mass was removed as a factor, his results did suggest a slightly above average level of explosiveness (with a result of 0.599), though nothing terribly impressive. We think those results generally fit with what we saw of him. He seemed like he wanted to be more of a speed rusher, rather than someone who could consistently drive an offensive tackle backwards. At the end of the day, we just don't like to bet on players with these sorts of physical traits, especially not with high draft picks. Though they can occasionally succeed, we feel falling into a pattern of making these sorts of selections will eventually get you into trouble. If somebody wanted to select Spence in the 4th or 5th round, sure, we could perhaps understand that gamble. In the 2nd round, not so much. Of course, all of this speculation doesn't even take into account his issues with ecstasy. We're not trying to be judgmental, because drugs can be a great way to get through the weekend, but there are some clear reasons to be concerned here. I mean, what's going to happen if an opposing offensive tackle pulls out a glow stick, and starts to wave it around? Is he just going to start dancing as if he is attending a rave, and forget to go after the quarterback? It seems like a legitimate risk.
Emmanuel Ogbah, DE, Oklahoma St
Kangaroo Score: 1.326 Agility Score: -0.450 Avg TFL: 15.25
The main thing we like about Ogbah is his potential lack of complicating issues. Unlike Bosa or Lawson, the only two other players that the computer gave a first round grade to, Ogbah is a bit more straightforward. While the rate at which Ogbah made plays behind the opponent's line of scrimmage is a tad short of what we associate with top level pass rushers (which also applies to Bosa and Lawson), the were fewer issues to suggest he was benefiting from other players on his own team's defense. His results were also a bit more consistent over the past two years, though we personally think his 2014 season was more impressive (relative to the opponents he faced), at least as a pass rusher. Athletically, because of the way Ogbah's athletic results tilt significantly towards power over agility, we would probably say that he is best suited to remaining as a 4-3 defensive end. Like Bosa and Lawson, his results suggest he is somewhat less explosive than he is powerful, though he probably has more of a burst than Lawson. We would also mention that Ogbah's exceptional arm length of 35.5" makes our nipples tingle a bit. Based on the little we have seen of him, there did seem to be a bit of inconsistency to his performances, but at his best he still struck us as fairly impressive. Another thing we like about Ogbah, is the possibility that he will be taken a bit later than some of the other top prospects, perhaps even as late as the end of 1st to early 2nd round range. If so, that sort of relative potential value would be rather appealing to us.
Kevin Dodd, DE, Clemson
Kangaroo Score: -0.204 Agility Score: -0.400 Avg TFL: 13
Just like we said when discussing his teammate, Shaq Lawson, we have some concerns about how these two players might have benefited from each other's presence, as well as the overall environment at Clemson. That they were similar in being one year wonders, also makes us nervous. Unfortunately for Dodd, he has significantly more issues that worry us than Lawson did. For one, Dodd will already be turning 24 this coming July. We don't particularly like it when players take this long to start performing at a high level. Secondly, Dodd's athletic traits suggest just average lower body power, below average agility and significantly below average explosiveness (-1.133). For someone who is often projected to be taken in the first 2 rounds of the draft, these issues would make us extremely concerned. While we could try to draw parallels to someone like Tamba Hali, who also had extremely questionable athletic traits, trying to find future successes by looking towards past anomalies doesn't strike us as a great idea. Even if he fell to the 7th round, we would have a hard time selecting someone with these issues.
Jonathan Bullard, DE, Florida
Kangaroo Score: 0.949 Agility Score: -0.713 Avg TFL: 13
We still haven't really made up our mind about the possibility of using Bullard as a defensive end. As we suggested in an earlier post, we kind of prefer the idea of using him as a defensive tackle. It should also be noted how differently his athletic traits appear under these two different scenarios. While we can't rule out the possibility of using him as a defensive end, we just think lining him up inside might give him more physical advantages with fewer potential weaknesses, than putting him on the edge of the line. He's a fairly interesting guy, but we suspect that the way he is utilized could have a much larger impact on his ability to succeed than what we see with many other players.
Shilique Calhoun, OLB, Michigan St.
Kangaroo Score: -0.188 Agility Score: 0.800 Avg TFL: 13.75*
Players like this tend to be a great source of annoyance to us. It's hard to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with them, and there are clearly a few positive traits that they bring to the table. They just aren't the sort of athletes we prefer to bet on. Calhoun's results would place him in the high agility group of pass rushers, which can be a strange and unpredictable group to deal with. Even when players like this do well, they still don't tend to become nearly as productive as their peers who have a higher degree of lower body power and explosiveness. When these players do thrive, we also tend to suspect that they do better when given a bit more space to operate, because if an offensive tackle gets their hands on them, they frequently get buried. This usually means that a player like Calhoun would do better if they went to a team that uses a 3-4 defense. We should also say that while Calhoun may be agile, his results probably still aren't quite good enough for us to feel very optimistic about how this will turn out. His agility results are just good, not great. As far as his statistical production is concerned, we would say that his results were a bit mediocre. While he produced okay results as a pass rusher, this appeared to come at the expense of his efforts as a run defender. He seemed to either reach the opposing QB, or he just got run over. People seem to think that he will be selected somewhere in the 2nd round, but we think he presents way too man risks, and would probably avoid him completely.
Carl Nassib, DE, Penn St.
Kangaroo Score: -0.070 Agility Score: -0.110 Avg TFL: 11.5
For someone who is often projected to be selected somewhere around the 3rd round, we don't have a great deal of confidence in Carl Nassib. While we could try to pick apart his athletic results, and say that there was at least some evidence of lower body power suggested by his broad jump, but we don't want to pursue that argument. His overall results point to the possibility that Nassib has only moderate lower body power, average agility, and significantly below average explosiveness. When we also consider that he will be turning 23 in April. and didn't show significant statistical production until this past season, that creates additional areas of concern. That this late statistical surge coincided with somewhat similar difficult to explain performances from teammates Austin Johnson and Anthony Zettel (to a lesser degree), makes us suspicious about how this all occurred. Much like Nassib, these other players also seemed to lack the sort of athletic traits that we normally associate with highly successful NFL players. While it is impossible to say that a player is doomed to become a failure, we would suggest that consistently overlooking the objective and measurable facts that a prospect like this presents should eventually erode a team's chances of success in the draft. We currently don't see any potential situation in which we would select Carl Nassib as an outside pass rusher. The computer does, however, view Nassib as a moderately interesting prospect as as a 3-4 defensive end, as his athletic results come out much better when compared to players in that weight class.
Kamalei Correa, OLB, Boise St.
Kangaroo Score: -0.567 Agility Score: 1.011 Avg TFL: 15
Since we finally have updated information from Correa's pro day, we've had to adjust his results a bit. While he did improve his Kangaroo Score since the combine, his results still suggest that he has below average explosiveness and lower body power for a 3-4 OLB. On the other hand, we did expect him to turn out to be a fairly agile player, and his results in that area were significantly better. Unfortunately, we usually find that high agility pass rushers don't tend to be quite as productive as the more explosive and powerful players in this position group, and also have a lower rate of success in general. Because of this, we tend to be wary of selecting these sorts of players in the first couple of rounds. While his statistical production looks impressive at first glance, there are some potential problems there as well. First of all, it is troubling how his numbers dropped in 2015, versus what they were in 2014 when his team's overall pass rushing success was much better. It creates the possibility that Correa was making plays behind the line of scrimmage because his opponents were more engaged with some of his teammates. Even if that wasn't the case, the rate at which he was making plays behind the line of scrimmage in 2014 (his best season) still falls a fair bit below what we would expect to see in a top level prospect. Based on the information we currently have, we would have a hard time envisioning a situation where the value that the computer places on Correa lines up with the 2nd to 3rd round grade that some people have proposed. On a more positive not, we think his results do a rather nice job of fitting the mold for an outside linebacker in a 4-3.
Charles Tapper, DE, Oklahoma
Kangaroo Score: 0.881 Agility Score: ? Avg TFL: 7.5
Without having all of the data we would like on Tapper, it is a bit difficult to speculate about his future. It becomes even more challenging when we consider the way that Oklahoma frequently used him as an undersized defensive tackle on so many snaps, which makes examining his production a bit murky, and somewhat problematic. While we can give him credit for appearing to have somewhat above average lower body power, we wouldn't say that his results suggest he has a matching level of explosiveness. If we can eventually get some agility results for Tapper, that would probably help to clarify what sort of athletic potential he really has, so we may have to reevaluate him once that comes in. So far, and based on what we have seen of Tapper, the expectations that some people have that he will be selected in the 2nd or 3rd round strikes us as a bit ridiculous.
Kyler Fackrell, OLB, Utah St.
Kangaroo Score: -0.137 Agility Score: 0.113 Avg TFL: 14
At 245 pounds, Fackrell is sort of on the fringe when it comes to whether he
could fit as a 3-4 OLB, or whether he would be a better fit as a 4-3
OLB. Since we now have Fackrell's pro day results, we can toss out our wild and irresponsible hunches about his future. Athletically, he sort of falls into a no man's land, where there seems to be nothing particularly interesting about him, but also nothing worth condemning. Since some people seem to be projecting him as a 3rd round pick, we would hope to see more dynamic physical traits. If it wasn't for his statistical production, we would probably ignore him completely. The problem is, while he was quite productive, he didn't produce exceptional results in the areas that interest us for an outside pass rusher. Right now we are leaning towards the 4-3 OLB option as being a better fit for someone with his physical traits, which we'll explore in a later post.
Bronson Kaufusi, DE, BYU
Kangaroo Score: 0.371 Agility Score: 0.684 Avg TFL: 15
We already kicked around the idea of using Kaufusi as a 3-4 defensive end in one of our earlier posts, but we thought we should include him here as well. Depending on what position he is going to play, we have to compare him to a different set of athletes, so his scores come out quite a bit differently on this list. He's kind of an odd prospect, who may not perfectly fit any one particular position. Teams may need to move him around a bit, in order to get the most out of him, though that isn't necessarily a bad thing. At the end of the day, he is a fairly gifted athlete, who was rather productive in college. Those are things we appreciate. Based on his overall results, the computer would give him a 3rd round grade.
Jordan Jenkins, OLB, Georgia.
Kangaroo Score: 1.042 Agility Score: -0.241 Avg TFL: 10.75
The similarities and differences that exist between Jenkins and his college teammate Leonard Floyd, strike us as rather interesting. While Jenkins Kangaroo Score suggests he might have slightly more lower body power than Floyd, their agility results would give a slight edge to Floyd. When weight isn't a factor, Floyd is clearly quite explosive, though Jenkins result of 1.158 is still quite impressive. While Floyd's athleticism might suggest he would benefit from being utilized as a 3-4 or 4-3 outside linebacker, where he would have more space, Jenkins results might point towards a career as a 4-3 defensive end. While their are potential differences, we wouldn't say that their is really an enormous divide between them when it comes to athletic ability. They are perhaps different sorts of athletes, but not from entirely different planets. When we look at their statistical production, we also don't see much to separate them, as the computer feels that both of them were just fairly average in college. The real difference, at least to us, comes in the possibility that Jenkins might only be selected somewhere between the 3rd to 5th round range, while Floyd is talked about as someone who will be taken much higher. We think that might tilt the potential question of value in Jenkins direction. We would also say that the fact that Jenkins is about 2 years younger than Floyd is another factor we appreciate. Based on our normal method of doing things, the computer gives Jenkins a 5th round grade.
Jason Fanaika, DE, Utah
Kangaroo Score: 0.735 Agility Score: 0.239 Avg TFL: 10
We have a very, very, very modest level of interest in Fanaika. Athletically, his results suggest that he has a respectable amount of lower body power, and could be someone that can hold up against the run, and perhaps bully his way towards an occasional sack. At the same time, he probably only has average agility and explosiveness. These are not the results of a highly dynamic player, but perhaps a serviceable one. From what we have seen of Fanaika, he plays pretty much the way his athletic results would suggest. When we consider his statistical production, there was a similar pattern of being serviceable but not spectacular. He was probably more of a contributor to his team's run defense, than he was to their pass rush, where his results were rather bland. In the end, the computer views him as possibly being worth a pick in the 6th round, though that appears to be a bit later in the draft than many are expecting him to be selected.
Matt Judon, DE, Grand Valley State
Kangaroo Score: 0.590 Agility Score: -1.296 Avg TFL: 21.25
Because of the rather wildly divergent outcomes from Judon's vertical jump and broad jump, it is possible that his Kangaroo Score is underestimating his lower body power a fair bit. If we only considered the results from his vertical jump, his result would move to 1.032, which is a bit more impressive. Still, while he may have some measure of power, his results don't suggest a high degree of explosiveness. We also worry that his rather poor agility results might make him a bit too stiff to really capitalize on the few strengths he does have. His statistical production is arguably more impressive than anyone else in this position group, and even more notable for having extended over multiple seasons. Granted, he was playing at a lower level of competition, but even when we attempt to adjust for that, his results are still quite good. Based on the very limited amount that we have seen of him, he made a reasonably good impression on us. Of course, we don't trust our lying eyes very much. Unless he shows significantly improved results at his pro day, we would have a hard time feeling that he has the sort of athletic traits that can produce any sort of consistent success in the NFL. Some people seem to think he will be a mid-round selection, but that strikes us as a bit too much of a gamble for our tastes.
Tyrone Holmes, OLB, Montana
Kangaroo Score: 0.196 Agility Score: 0.603 Avg TFL: 19
Every single year there is some small school player who puts up goofy pass rushing stats, and 50% of the time they seem to come from Montana. We've had Zach Wagenmann in 2015, and Brock Coyle and Jordan Tripp back in 2014. Really though, we should primarily just be comparing him to Zach Wagenmann, who went undrafted last year but has a temporary home with the Cardinals. Like Wagenmann, Holmes overall athletic scores were fairly pedestrian, but there are some moderately interesting signs of potential buried underneath it all. If we separate the two aspects of the Kangaroo Score, and only looked at the results from his vertical jump, we would wind up with a result of 0.879, which suggests a moderately intriguing amount of lower body power. Also, like Wagenmann, Holmes statistical production clearly stands out as being unusually strong, though Holmes period of productivity was mainly limited to one season, unlike his former teammate. Initially, we suggested giving Holmes a 6th or 7th round grade, but we've changed our minds about this. Our cowardice, that stems from a lack of confidence in the Montana football program, might have been clouding our minds. If we strictly adhered to what the computer was telling us to do, our Banana 6000 Data Thresher would allow us to pick him as high as the 4th round. Holmes may be one of the few mid-to-late round pass rushing prospects who has a legitimate chance to exceed peoples' expectations.
Showing posts with label pass rusher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pass rusher. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Jackson Jeffcoat vs. Trent Murphy
This might be a subject that is only interesting to me and Reilly. That's probably pretty typical of the stuff we write about around here. Nevertheless, we're really fascinated by the competition that is quietly occurring between Redskins' outside linebackers Jackson Jeffcoat and Trent Murphy.
Part of what draws our attention to this subject goes back to the 2014 NFL Draft. As always, we plugged each player's available data into the computer, and it gave us our projected draft grades for where we would have been willing to select each of them. We ended up assigning 3rd round draft grades to both of Murphy and Jeffcoat, and actually found that we had to parse the data a bit more thoroughly to really distinguish one player from the other.
Athletically, they both measured up as remarkably similar players. They both fell into our category of High Agility Pass Rushers, which is a group that tends to be a bit less likely to achieve stardom, but a group that you still can't ignore completely. Weird and wonderful outcomes do occasionally show up with these sorts of players. Perhaps even more interesting, at least for this comparison, this is also a category of pass rushers that Junior Galette also falls into, and he is the player whom they would both be competing to fill in for. When it came to their statistical production in college, Muprhy and Jeffcoat also fell into somewhat similar categories, once we adjusted the results for college games missed due to injuries. It still remained a bit difficult to predict who was likely to have a better NFL career.
In the end, we ended up examining their collegiate statistical production even more thoroughly. We tried to factor in their age, the degree to which their respective teams might be relying on them, and the advantages they might have had when it came to their team playing with a lead. We also compared these factors to many of the players from the past, who have gone on the become obvious successes in the NFL. This added approach became something that interested us, and is something we've started to quietly apply to other players, though it's still something we are fiddling with.
We came to the conclusion that if we had to bet on one of these players, we would have to put our money down on Jackson Jeffcoat. We also started to feel just a tad nervous about the quality of the 3rd round grade we had for Trent Murphy.
Where their paths sadly diverged.
Trent Murphy would go on to be selected in the 2nd round (47th overall pick), by the Washington Redskins, just a bit higher than where the computer suggested that he should be considered. Jackson Jeffcoat, to many people's surprise, would wind up not being selected at all.
It's still not entirely clear why nobody selected Jeffcoat, as he was generally discussed as a fairly popular prospect. I don't really recall any discussion of unfortunate 'off the field issues', that often explain these kinds of occurrences. The only possible explanation I have heard is that Jeffcoat had dealt with some injury issues in college. The severity and long term impact of these injuries was difficult to judge. Still, even if that was the issue, we would have expected someone to select him with a late round pick. It was all a bit of a mystery.
Regardless, after being picked up as an undrafted free agent by the Seahawks, we kept our eye on Jeffcoat, but is was all for nothing. The team released him after the 2014 preseason, which wasn't encouraging. Shortly thereafter, the Redskins would pick him up, assigning Jeffcoat to their practice squad. That's when things became very interesting to us.
Suddenly, we had these two peculiar prospects, whom we had previously directly compared to each other, playing on the same team, and competing at the same position. It was truly a moment of dork-tastic joy for us.
So, what happened?
Well, not much.
As you would expect, the player whom the Redskins had invested a high draft pick in (Murphy), had a clear advantage, and saw actual playing time much earlier in the 2014 season. Until week 16, Jeffcoat would only be on the field for 1 single snap. For week 16 and 17, however, we got to see a very brief glimpse of what Jeffcoat might be capable of doing, if given a chance.
Despite the advantages or disadvantages that each player might have possessed, I though we would put up their statistical production from 2014, including their number of games played/started, as well as their total snaps played.
Now, it is admittedly a bit difficult to really compare the performance of these two players based solely on this limited snapshot of their results. Murphy started 8 times as many games, and was on the field for about 5 times as many snaps as Jeffcoat. Even attempting to compare a player based solely on their stat sheets is something that would likely just lead to arguments, though I think most of us would agree that we prefer to see players producing measurable results.
I also have no interest in condemning or criticizing Trent Murphy. That's not our goal here. Based solely on his statistical production, I would say that Murphy produced respectable/tolerable enough results for a rookie outside linebacker, even if I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that he set the world on fire with his play.
What does interest me, is what happens if we try to extrapolate Jackson Jeffcoat's results over a full 16 game season, and compare this to Trent Murphy"s results. This would also be a highly questionable thing to do, since the sample size for Jeffcoat in 2014 was very small, and could lead to some extremely debatable conclusions. Despite all of that, I am intrigued by an undrafted player who can come off the bench, and produce a sack and an interception, even in very limited playing time. There are generally good reasons to be doubtful about the prospects of most undrafted players, or players who have fallen into a backup role. Yet when Jeffcoat was finally allowed on the field, he did seem to make his presence known, at least to some extent.
Of course, sacks and interceptions tend to be flashy plays, that frequently have too much emphasis placed on them, especially in the confines of the small sample size we are looking at here. So, we'll try not to get carried away with our irrational optimism.
Looking towards the 2015 season.
That leads us to what happened in the 2015 NFL preseason, that brief window in which we get to see some of the less talked about players, as they compete to be noticed. Once again, Reilly and I found ourselves drawn to what might be happening between Murphy and Jeffcoat, and we were encouraged by what we saw.
Let's take a look at the results for each of these two players through 4 preseason games. This time we'll leave out the games started/played stat, since it is a bit meaningless in the preseason.
When given an opportunity to play in an almost identical number of snaps, Jeffcoat really made a rather good impression. The number of high impact plays he was involved in actually strikes me as fairly stunning, particularly since this wasn't just the product of merely one good game. In every single preseason game, Jeffcoat managed to get to the quarterback for a sack, which we still feel is the primary purpose for this type of outside linebacker. The additional interception and forced fumble, are just nice added bonuses.
We could also talk about their tackle numbers, though most people don't seem to be interested in the statistical geekery that surrounds that subject. This is where we get into the discussion of "stops", which relates to where a tackle was made on the field, which determines whether it was a true victory for the defense, as opposed to a more meaningless down the field type of tackle. Of Jackson's 7 credited tackles, 6 were considered to be stops by PFF, which works out to 85.7%. In Trent Murphy's 3 credited tackles, PFF only viewed 1 to be a successful stop, which is just 33.3%.
Again, none of this is meant to be a judgment of Murphy. There's plenty of room to debate how these results come about in preseason games, especially with how these players are rotated onto the field. The degree to which they faced comparable levels of talent from their opposition, based on this rotation, is hard to say. We're really just interested in the differences in how these two player's are currently being perceived by the public, and by their own team.
We don't believe in hope.
I suppose the reason we really find this comparison interesting stems from the way we hear people discussing these two players. Through the preseason, it was largely assumed that Trent Murphy's starting role with the team was secure. Jackson Jeffcoat, on the other hand, was being mentioned in numerous articles that discussed whether he was "on the bubble", and someone who might not even make the team's roster at all (though he eventually did make the team). I have to admit that I find this to be incredibly bizarre. Is there any explanation for this, beyond the favoritism that is shown towards players with a higher draft status? I really don't know, though I have my suspicions.
In the limited time that these two players had to demonstrate their skills and potential impact, it would seem to me that one of them (Jeffcoat) made the debate very interesting. Murphy, on the other hand, seems to be getting a lot of goodwill faith placed in him, despite making a relatively unexceptional impact, at least so far. I realize that some people will say that what went on in the team's practices probably played just as important a role in how the Redskins viewed these players. Unfortunately, that sort of falls into the realm of "coaches have an eye for talent", which makes me a tad nervous. After all, I come from a magical place where people once heralded Kyle Boller as a potential savior. Basing decisions off of measurable results just makes me more comfortable. In that area, Jeffcoat is, at the very least, very intriguing.
While I wouldn't consider myself an advocate for making Jeffcoat an immediate starter, based merely off of these relatively small samples, the idea that the team could have potentially cut him in favor of Murphy strikes me as a bit peculiar. At the very least, you would think rotating both of these players onto the field, until a clear victor emerges might be the sensible thing to do. I also don't really see it as presenting much real risk to the team. Still, I sort of doubt that this will happen. Teams seem to have a strong belief in the hierarchy and value of draft status, and shaking off labels such as 'starter" or 'backup' is only done with much difficulty. It is unfortunate.
While I can't say that we are optimistic about the possibility of a true, honest and open competition ever occurring between these players, we are curious as to how it will all play out.
Part of what draws our attention to this subject goes back to the 2014 NFL Draft. As always, we plugged each player's available data into the computer, and it gave us our projected draft grades for where we would have been willing to select each of them. We ended up assigning 3rd round draft grades to both of Murphy and Jeffcoat, and actually found that we had to parse the data a bit more thoroughly to really distinguish one player from the other.
Athletically, they both measured up as remarkably similar players. They both fell into our category of High Agility Pass Rushers, which is a group that tends to be a bit less likely to achieve stardom, but a group that you still can't ignore completely. Weird and wonderful outcomes do occasionally show up with these sorts of players. Perhaps even more interesting, at least for this comparison, this is also a category of pass rushers that Junior Galette also falls into, and he is the player whom they would both be competing to fill in for. When it came to their statistical production in college, Muprhy and Jeffcoat also fell into somewhat similar categories, once we adjusted the results for college games missed due to injuries. It still remained a bit difficult to predict who was likely to have a better NFL career.
In the end, we ended up examining their collegiate statistical production even more thoroughly. We tried to factor in their age, the degree to which their respective teams might be relying on them, and the advantages they might have had when it came to their team playing with a lead. We also compared these factors to many of the players from the past, who have gone on the become obvious successes in the NFL. This added approach became something that interested us, and is something we've started to quietly apply to other players, though it's still something we are fiddling with.
We came to the conclusion that if we had to bet on one of these players, we would have to put our money down on Jackson Jeffcoat. We also started to feel just a tad nervous about the quality of the 3rd round grade we had for Trent Murphy.
Where their paths sadly diverged.
Trent Murphy would go on to be selected in the 2nd round (47th overall pick), by the Washington Redskins, just a bit higher than where the computer suggested that he should be considered. Jackson Jeffcoat, to many people's surprise, would wind up not being selected at all.
It's still not entirely clear why nobody selected Jeffcoat, as he was generally discussed as a fairly popular prospect. I don't really recall any discussion of unfortunate 'off the field issues', that often explain these kinds of occurrences. The only possible explanation I have heard is that Jeffcoat had dealt with some injury issues in college. The severity and long term impact of these injuries was difficult to judge. Still, even if that was the issue, we would have expected someone to select him with a late round pick. It was all a bit of a mystery.
Regardless, after being picked up as an undrafted free agent by the Seahawks, we kept our eye on Jeffcoat, but is was all for nothing. The team released him after the 2014 preseason, which wasn't encouraging. Shortly thereafter, the Redskins would pick him up, assigning Jeffcoat to their practice squad. That's when things became very interesting to us.
Suddenly, we had these two peculiar prospects, whom we had previously directly compared to each other, playing on the same team, and competing at the same position. It was truly a moment of dork-tastic joy for us.
So, what happened?
Well, not much.
As you would expect, the player whom the Redskins had invested a high draft pick in (Murphy), had a clear advantage, and saw actual playing time much earlier in the 2014 season. Until week 16, Jeffcoat would only be on the field for 1 single snap. For week 16 and 17, however, we got to see a very brief glimpse of what Jeffcoat might be capable of doing, if given a chance.
Despite the advantages or disadvantages that each player might have possessed, I though we would put up their statistical production from 2014, including their number of games played/started, as well as their total snaps played.
| 2014 Season | ||||||||
| Player | GP | GS | Snaps | Tackles | Sacks | PDef | Int. | FF |
| T. Murphy | 16 | 8 | 595 | 32 | 2.5 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| J. Jeffcoat | 3 | 1 | 118 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Now, it is admittedly a bit difficult to really compare the performance of these two players based solely on this limited snapshot of their results. Murphy started 8 times as many games, and was on the field for about 5 times as many snaps as Jeffcoat. Even attempting to compare a player based solely on their stat sheets is something that would likely just lead to arguments, though I think most of us would agree that we prefer to see players producing measurable results.
I also have no interest in condemning or criticizing Trent Murphy. That's not our goal here. Based solely on his statistical production, I would say that Murphy produced respectable/tolerable enough results for a rookie outside linebacker, even if I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that he set the world on fire with his play.
What does interest me, is what happens if we try to extrapolate Jackson Jeffcoat's results over a full 16 game season, and compare this to Trent Murphy"s results. This would also be a highly questionable thing to do, since the sample size for Jeffcoat in 2014 was very small, and could lead to some extremely debatable conclusions. Despite all of that, I am intrigued by an undrafted player who can come off the bench, and produce a sack and an interception, even in very limited playing time. There are generally good reasons to be doubtful about the prospects of most undrafted players, or players who have fallen into a backup role. Yet when Jeffcoat was finally allowed on the field, he did seem to make his presence known, at least to some extent.
Of course, sacks and interceptions tend to be flashy plays, that frequently have too much emphasis placed on them, especially in the confines of the small sample size we are looking at here. So, we'll try not to get carried away with our irrational optimism.
Looking towards the 2015 season.
That leads us to what happened in the 2015 NFL preseason, that brief window in which we get to see some of the less talked about players, as they compete to be noticed. Once again, Reilly and I found ourselves drawn to what might be happening between Murphy and Jeffcoat, and we were encouraged by what we saw.
Let's take a look at the results for each of these two players through 4 preseason games. This time we'll leave out the games started/played stat, since it is a bit meaningless in the preseason.
| 2015 Preseason | ||||||
| Player | Snaps | Tackles | Sacks | PDef | Int. | FF |
| T. Murphy | 84 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| J. Jeffcoat | 89 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
When given an opportunity to play in an almost identical number of snaps, Jeffcoat really made a rather good impression. The number of high impact plays he was involved in actually strikes me as fairly stunning, particularly since this wasn't just the product of merely one good game. In every single preseason game, Jeffcoat managed to get to the quarterback for a sack, which we still feel is the primary purpose for this type of outside linebacker. The additional interception and forced fumble, are just nice added bonuses.
We could also talk about their tackle numbers, though most people don't seem to be interested in the statistical geekery that surrounds that subject. This is where we get into the discussion of "stops", which relates to where a tackle was made on the field, which determines whether it was a true victory for the defense, as opposed to a more meaningless down the field type of tackle. Of Jackson's 7 credited tackles, 6 were considered to be stops by PFF, which works out to 85.7%. In Trent Murphy's 3 credited tackles, PFF only viewed 1 to be a successful stop, which is just 33.3%.
Again, none of this is meant to be a judgment of Murphy. There's plenty of room to debate how these results come about in preseason games, especially with how these players are rotated onto the field. The degree to which they faced comparable levels of talent from their opposition, based on this rotation, is hard to say. We're really just interested in the differences in how these two player's are currently being perceived by the public, and by their own team.
We don't believe in hope.
I suppose the reason we really find this comparison interesting stems from the way we hear people discussing these two players. Through the preseason, it was largely assumed that Trent Murphy's starting role with the team was secure. Jackson Jeffcoat, on the other hand, was being mentioned in numerous articles that discussed whether he was "on the bubble", and someone who might not even make the team's roster at all (though he eventually did make the team). I have to admit that I find this to be incredibly bizarre. Is there any explanation for this, beyond the favoritism that is shown towards players with a higher draft status? I really don't know, though I have my suspicions.
In the limited time that these two players had to demonstrate their skills and potential impact, it would seem to me that one of them (Jeffcoat) made the debate very interesting. Murphy, on the other hand, seems to be getting a lot of goodwill faith placed in him, despite making a relatively unexceptional impact, at least so far. I realize that some people will say that what went on in the team's practices probably played just as important a role in how the Redskins viewed these players. Unfortunately, that sort of falls into the realm of "coaches have an eye for talent", which makes me a tad nervous. After all, I come from a magical place where people once heralded Kyle Boller as a potential savior. Basing decisions off of measurable results just makes me more comfortable. In that area, Jeffcoat is, at the very least, very intriguing.
While I wouldn't consider myself an advocate for making Jeffcoat an immediate starter, based merely off of these relatively small samples, the idea that the team could have potentially cut him in favor of Murphy strikes me as a bit peculiar. At the very least, you would think rotating both of these players onto the field, until a clear victor emerges might be the sensible thing to do. I also don't really see it as presenting much real risk to the team. Still, I sort of doubt that this will happen. Teams seem to have a strong belief in the hierarchy and value of draft status, and shaking off labels such as 'starter" or 'backup' is only done with much difficulty. It is unfortunate.
While I can't say that we are optimistic about the possibility of a true, honest and open competition ever occurring between these players, we are curious as to how it will all play out.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Kangaroo Court: The 2015 DEs & 3-4 OLBs
We've had our ears planted firmly against the side of the computer, listening to it sputter, fart and whir, and we're still not entirely sure what to make of its rumblings. Prior to entering the data for this year's outside pass rushers, it had hummed along in a perfectly happy manner, cranking out the midget porn and Twilight fan fiction that sustains us. Now, it appears to be having an epileptic fit. Our Banana 6000 Data Thresher aims to please. It knows that we want to find some sort of safe options at the top of the draft, but no matter how hard we shake it, our monitor keeps saying "concentrate and ask again".
It's not entirely the computer's fault. Compared to past years, this crop of pass rushers does appear to be a bit more murky than usual. There are several players with great athletic potential. There are others with proven performance. Unfortunately, there seems to be relatively little overlap between these two groups, and that overlap is the sweet spot that we are normally seeking to find. It's something we talked about when exploring the topic of Explosive Pass Rushers, and served as the basis for a little game where we pitted the computer's imaginary selections against those of some NFL GMs. As things currently stand, we might be tempted to avoid a lot of the more highly touted pass rushing prospects that are available this year.
When we made our list of 3-4 OLB and DE prospects last year,we just felt there was a clearer divide between the players we would take a shot at, and the ones who were likely to disappoint. This year, it feels like there is a lot more of a gray area, and a lot more risk. Player's who we would normally find to be interesting mid-round selections, are being projected to go in the 1st round. One year wonders, players with injury concerns, or unproven athletic potential, are getting pushed higher than we normally feel comfortable with accepting. I keep hearing how this is supposedly a great draft for pass rushers, and though there are a few prospects we really like, we suspect this year could be a bloodbath for a lot of teams, that leaves many people feeling very dissatisfied. Perhaps, worst of all, it just doesn't seem like a great year for finding a huge bargain or undiscovered gem in the later rounds. As more pro day results roll in, our opinion on that might change.
As always, we will list the player's Kangaroo Score (which measures lower body power), and their Agility Score (which comes from the short shuttle drill and the 3-cone drill). The scores are shown in the form of how many standard deviations that a player is above, or below, the average result for a player in their position group. The ideal prospect, in our opinion, would have a Kangaroo Score that is at least one standard deviation above average, at least an average Agility Score, and be averaging about 15 tackles for a loss in his final two college seasons. Of course, in the end, we often have to make some compromises here.
This list will continue to be modified/updated as new data and prospects come to my attention. I don't plan to list every prospect here, but instead will just show the ones that I think are interesting for either good or bad reasons. Last Updated: 4/20/2015
Dante Fowler, DE/OLB, Florida
Kangaroo Score: -0.215 Agility Score: -0.222 Avg TFL: 12.75
While his results from the combine produced rather unexceptional scores, I can't entirely dismiss the possibility that he will succeed. Players like Terrell Suggs and Tamba Hali were both fairly pedestrian athletes, and they have done well for themselves, so it is a possibility. Unfortunately, Suggs and Hali both showed much greater statistical production in their college years, to hint at their potential upside. For the most part, the computer saw nothing terribly interesting in Fowler's production, though there were some signs that he was gradually improving. If he had returned to Florida for his senior year, it is possible that we might have a somewhat higher opinion of him. As things stand, we feel that Fowler presents a high degree of risk, at least for someone who is generally projected to go in the 1st round, and even more so if he is taken in the first 10 picks of the draft.
Vic Beasley, OLB, Clemson
Kangaroo Score: 1.305 Agility Score: 1.192 Avg TFL: 22.25
Well, according to our typical methods for evaluating these things, Beasley does have the athletic traits and statistical production that would merit a 1st round pick. Even when we attempt to factor in the potential benefits of playing alongside Stephone Anthony, Grady Jarrett, and Corey Crawford, his results still remain rather impressive. I suppose that his relatively low number of tackles might raise some concerns, and make him appear to be a Freeney-esque type of player who only goes after the QB (a somewhat legitimate concern), but the positive side of this is that his tackle numbers were largely of the 'solo' variety, with very few assists. Still, he probably isn't the most amazing tackler in the world, or a huge force against the run. We think some of these minor problems might be alleviated by no longer playing DE, and switching to 3-4 OLB, or even as a 4-3 OLB. Whether he can keep the added weight he has recently put on, would have a significant impact on which of these roles he is better suited to play. While some people compare him to Von Miller, which may seem ridiculous, this is probably a more reasonable comparison than the one that some people make to Bruce Irvin, who I think Beasley is vastly superior to. So, in the end, we'll stick with the 1st round grade that the computer gave him.
Randy Gregory, OLB, Nebraska
Kangaroo Score: -0.130 Agility Score: 1.182 Avg TFL: 14.5
I have to admit that I am a bit biased against players like Gregory, though I am trying to keep an open mind. While we prefer pass rushers with greater lower body power, we wouldn't deny that high agility players like Gregory do sometimes produce rather good results. The problem is that they tend to be more of a crap shoot, and their ceiling doesn't tend to be quite as high as their peers with higher Kangaroo Scores. A player like Clay Matthews is sort of the ideal (but unlikely) outcome for a player like this. There also seem to be issues with how to maximize the chances that a player like Gregory can succeed. Like we said when discussing Jason Worilds and Jerry Hughes, giving these types of nimbly toed individuals some space to operate in, might be a requirement. When players like this are asked to directly take on opposing offensive tackles, there's a good chance they are just going to get demolished. While Gregory might do okay as a 3-4 OLB, we think that playing LB in a 4-3 might be even more advantageous. When the computer weighs the athletic potential and statistical production of someone like Randy Gregory, the best we can do is to give him a 3rd round grade. At that point in the draft, his odds of success line up a bit better with the cost of your investment.
Shane Ray, DE/OLB, Missouri
Kangaroo Score: -0.215 Agility Score: -1.327 Avg TFL: 15.75
We're gradually developing a serious distrust of pass rushers from Missouri. It's actually starting to rival our paranoia about prospects from Alabama. In the past year, a total of 4 defensive ends have come out of Missouri (Ray, Golden, Sam, and Ealy), all of whom had rather excellent statistical production, and 2 who were even selected as the SEC defensive player of the year (Ray and Sam). In pretty much every single case, they demonstrated athletic ability that made us wonder if they had just hobbled out of an emergency room. Of these four prospects, Ealy was the only one we could make some argument for, and even then, the computer only thought he was worth a selection in the 4th-6th round range. We're starting to wonder if team's should be looking at Missouri's defensive coordinator rather than the players that this school is cranking out. There is definitely something odd going on here. So, instead of asking whether Ray is worth a top 10 pick, we're going to suggest that he might not be worth drafting at all. Good luck to whoever decides to take him.
Alvin Dupree, DE/OLB, Kentucky
Kangaroo Score: 3.155 Agility Score: -0.896 Avg TFL: 11
This is going to give me an ulcer. I'm probably one of the last people who would want to downplay the importance of good combine results, but in Dupree's case, I think it might be warranted. Look, there is no denying that Dupree has freakish explosiveness. In many ways, he is the exact sort of physical specimen that normally causes me to start drooling, though the initial (and still unofficial) reports from his pro day suggest some potentially worrisome issues with his agility. The problem is that these sorts of measurable traits are only supposed to be ways of gauging a player's potential. Whether a player has the sort of physical advantages that will make the transition to a higher level of competition relatively effortless, is interesting. At the same time, you really would like to see a player with this sort of potential display some evidence of their dominance while in college. It's hard to say that Dupree really accomplished that mission. While Dupree was the primary pass rushing threat at Kentucky, and shouldered his share of the load without much assistance, he never really seemed to have a statistical breakout, and become a terror. On a per snap basis, he disrupted plays behind the line of scrimmage at a reasonable rate, but there was really nothing exceptional about it. He just sort of cruised along for 3 years, being consistently good, but never great, with almost no signs of real statistical progress. We might blame some of this on the poor talent that surrounded him, and the fact that his team frequently was playing from behind. Still, when you are as physically gifted as Dupree appears to be, wouldn't you expect him to be a bit more unstoppable, regardless of his circumstances? When Reilly and I sat down to watch a handful of his games, we came away feeling a bit underwhelmed. While Dupree showed occasional flashes of his ability, it just wasn't enough to set our nipples on fire. Even if we weighed him solely on his best two college seasons, the computer wouldn't let us give him a grade any higher than the 3rd round. At this point, selecting Dupree in the 1st round feels like choosing your wife based solely on the size of her breasts, without ever finding out if she is also good at making sandwiches. Hey, call me a crazy feminist, but it's important to weigh some of these less superficial factors. Because of his freakish athletic abilities, I wouldn't be stunned if he outperforms our expectations, but I wouldn't want to gamble on that. Based on the initial reports from his pro day, and what this might suggest about his agility, I would have to lean towards Dupree being used as a 4-3 DE. Honestly though, I'm perfectly happy with the thought that Dupree will probably be selected well before Team Kangaroo is on the clock, just so I won't be tempted to do something potentially risky.
Owamagbe "Supercalifragilistic" Odighizuwa, DE, UCLA
Kangaroo Score: 1.928 Agility Score: 0.214 Avg TFL: 8.75
Because of the way his results tilt rather strongly towards power over agility, I suspect Odighizuwa is probably better suited to playing defensive end in a 4-3, rather than making any attempt to use him as a 3-4 OLB. It's not that playing 3-4 OLB is an impossibility, it just might not entirely play to his strengths. In the handful of games where we were able to watch him, Reilly and I both found him to be a rather interesting and capable player, and our lying eyeballs probably preferred him to someone like Bud Dupree. While he is a rather interesting athlete, the computer still has some enormous issues with him. Even if we just graded him based on his 2014 performance, the one year when he was a regular starter, his results wouldn't allow us to give him a grade higher than the 4th round. Some of his production issues prior to that point might be excused by missing a significant amount of playing time due to two hip surgeries, but I fail to see how that should make me feel any more comfortable. While hip surgery might be an expected outcome for your grandmother or a German Shepherd, it isn't something we like to see in defensive ends. It wouldn't shock us if Odighizuwa turns out to be a better pro player than he was at the college level, but the possibility that he will be selected in the first 2 rounds strikes me as an insanely unreasonable gamble to take based purely on potential. We kind of see Odigizuwa as one of the bigger wild cards in this years draft. Even if he turns out to be an exceptional player, which he might, that wouldn't change our opinion about the wisdom of taking such a risk.
Eli Harold, OLB, Virginia
Kangaroo Score: 0.137 Agility Score: 0.856 Avg TFL: 14.75
When it comes to athletic ability, Harold has a lot in common with Randy Gregory, though he is perhaps a little bit less explosive. He's fairly agile, but probably not very powerful. Perhaps because of his rather mediocre Kangaroo Score, we seem to see him get easily overpowered by opposing offensive tackles much more than I would hope for, especially when lined up as a defensive end. If he continues to be used primarily as a 3-4 OLB, where he would have a bit more space, he does have some reasonable potential. Based on his athletic traits, and his fairly good statistical production, the computer wouldn't allow us to select him before the 3rd round, which is probably lower than where he will actually be taken. When we eventually end up discussing the other linebacker positions, I think our opinion of him might improve somewhat.
Danielle Hunter, DE, LSU
Kangaroo Score: 0.989 Agility Score: 0.523 Avg TFL: 10.5
The widely varying opinions on where in the draft that Hunter will be selected is kind of comical. Some people (idiots) are suggesting that he should be taken in the 1st round. Others, suggest that he is just a project, and shouldn't be taken until the 5th round. Now, based on his athletic ability, I have to say he is fairly interesting, but overlooking his extremely weak college production isn't something we are inclined to do. While I hate to discuss "technique" because we aren't really qualified to delve into that particular brand of witchcraft, Hunter did convey a sort of 'chicken with his head cut off' vibe, when we watched him play. He truly appeared to have no idea what he was supposed to be doing half of the time. He has interesting athletic potential, but we just view him as a project. Based on our normal criteria, we wouldn't take him until the 5th round.
Hau'oli Kikaha, OLB, Washington
Kangaroo Score: -0.462 Agility Score: 0.101 Avg TFL: 16
When you consider Kikaha's history of torn ACLs, his forty time in the 4.93 second range, and the results listed above, he does become a very troubling prospect. If a team actually selects him somewhere in the first 3 rounds, as people suggest may happen, and things don't work out, the GM who made this selection won't be able to claim that there weren't numerous warning signs.
Nate Orchard, DE, Utah
Kangaroo Score: -0.664 Agility Score: -0.295 Avg TFL: 15
I have to admit that Nate Orchard somewhat annoys me. I kind of liked him as a player, and there was some extremely encouraging data related to his statistical production that I felt was worth pursuing. Unfortunately, his athletic traits would make it impossible for me to take a gamble on him, especially with a pick as high as the 2nd round, which is where he seems to be projected to be taken. Hopefully he will defy the odds, but that's not the sort of bet we like to make.
Mario Edwards, DE/DT, Florida State
Kangaroo Score: 1.018 Agility Score: -0.936 Avg TFL: 10.25
The tricky thing with Edwards, is trying to guess what position he will end up playing. At his current weight of 279 pounds, he could be used as a 4-3 defensive end, or a team could try to bulk him up and turn him into a defensive tackle. For the moment, we're leaning towards the DT option. The scores that we have listed above would be altered rather significantly, depending on this decision, because he has to be compared to a completely different group of athletes, with very different expectations. Based on the little we have seen of him, he really didn't seem nearly as stiff as his Agility Score would have led us to expect. At the same time, he didn't really do anything to blow us away, or make us want to take him in the 2nd-3rd round range, where we frequently see him projected to be selected. He didn't strike us as a bad player, we just have some doubts about how much upside there is here.
Preston Smith, DE, Mississippi St.
Kangaroo Score: 1.005 Agility Score: 0.524 Avg TFL: 10.75
In one of our previous posts, we kicked around the possibility of force feeding Preston Smith cheeseburgers, and turning him into a 3-4 DE. Because of his height (a hair short of 6'5") and arm length (about 34"), we still think that that is our preferred position for Smith. When projected as a 4-3 DE, and compared to a different group of athletes, his results get almost completely flipped around. While his athletic traits provide some fairly wide ranging possibilities as to what position he could play, this potential versatility is a good thing. Unfortunately, when it comes to his statistical production, he was a bit of a late bloomer, and the data gives us some significant reasons to be concerned. The degree to which his production was hindered by playing all along the defensive line, including quite a few snaps at DT, also makes things a bit tricky to judge. Based on our normal criteria, the computer would only allow us to give Smith a 5th round grade. Still, I kind of like Preston Smith, and I've been arguing with Reilly that we should bend the rules a bit because of the numerous ways in which he could be used. I don't necessarily think Smith will become a star, but I suspect he could be a fairly solid player. Personally, I could be tempted to select Smith in the 2nd or 3rd round, which is still later than many people project him to be taken. Reilly, of course, says that I am being an idiot, and is threatening to stop talking to me if we choose Smith with that high of a pick.
Trey Flowers, DE, Arkansas
Kangaroo Score: 1.142 Agility Score: -0.328 Avg TFL: 14.5
The more that we see of Flowers, the more we find ourselves liking him. He just grows on us, like tentacles in Japanese erotica. Based on his athletic ability and production, the computer gave Flowers a 2nd round grade. That's where we run into a problem. We're just not sure if we like him enough to take him that high in the draft. His athletic results, point to him strictly being a 4-3 DE, not that this is a problem. Flowers' sluggish 40-yard time of 4.93 seconds, with a 10-yard split of 1.73 seconds could both be seen as a bit worrisome, and does drop his value a bit for us. In a number of ways, his results kind of remind us of his former teammate Chris Smith, who was drafted in the 5th round in 2013. Compared to Smith, Flowers is probably a slightly better athlete, though their production was really quite similar, even if Smith converted more of his pressures into sacks. To some extent, they are almost clones of each other, with Smith being perhaps a tad quicker and more explosive, and Flowers being a touch more nimble. While Flowers seems to do a number of things rather well, we're not sure if we would say that he is truly amazing in any one area. We're sort of leaning towards the idea that Flowers might become a good solid player, but probably not a star. That's causing us to want to wait a bit. If he fell to the 3rd round, we'd be rather tempted to select him. In the 2nd round, we suspect there will be players at other positions, whose upside might be more tempting.
Za'Darius Smith, DE, Kentucky
Kangaroo Score: -0.118 Agility Score: -1.202 Avg TFL: 7
We don't really see any reason to take Smith seriously, and have no idea why he is projected by some people to be a 3rd round prospect. Still, Za'Darius is a fairly awesome name. Maybe he is a wizard.
Markus Golden, DE, Missouri
Kangaroo Score: -0.957 Agility Score: -0.890 Avg TFL: 16.5
Consider our previously expressed lack of interest in Shane Ray. Now, lower your expectations even further. That is where you will find Markus Golden.
Davis Tull, OLB, Chattanooga
Kangaroo Score: 1.623 Agility Score: ? Avg TFL: 16.5
At this point in time, it seems we will never be able to get the data to calculate Tull's Agility Score, which is a bit frustrating. Normally, I assume that players who avoid doing the short shuttle and 3-cone drill, because of a "pulled hamstring", are bullshitting us in order to avoid an area where they expect to test poorly. Still, he does have that lovely Kangaroo Score to fall back on, and I find myself slightly aroused by the power and explosiveness that it suggests. Now for the bad news. He already has a titanium rod in his leg. He had labrum surgery in March. Then, we have those repeated hamstring injuries, which may or may not exist. We're also just a tiny bit concerned about his stubby 31.25" arms. When you combine all of that with his lower level of competition, you have some reasons to slow the hype train. In the little we have seen of him, we honestly didn't find him to be nearly as terrifying as his numbers might suggest. While Tull has some potential to become a 3-4 OLB, we somewhat wonder if he might fit better as a 4-3 OLB. With the normal deduction we give to players who compete at a lower level, and without the agility data we would like to have, the computer would hesitantly give him a potential 3rd round grade. In reality, we would hedge our bets a bit more. If he was still around in the 5th round, we might be interested.
Kyle Emanuel, OLB, North Dakota St.
Kangaroo Score: 0.201 Agility Score: 0.549 Avg TFL: 21.25
There's really nothing terribly shocking about Emanuel's athletic ability. In most areas he is just a tiny bit above average. On the other hand, his statistical production is something we have to pay attention to. Even though the bulk of his production came in his final year, at which point he was already 23 years old, and against a lower level of competition, you have to take somebody like this somewhat seriously. While he may not possess the sort of athletic gifts that Davis Tull has, I have to admit that I still found him to be a more interesting player to watch. I probably wouldn't pursue him, but he is a curiosity.
Zach Wagenmann DE, Montana St.
Kangaroo Score: -0.309 Agility Score: 0.579 Avg TFL: 19.5
If we adjusted for the rather enormous difference in the results of his vertical jump and his broad jump, we might be able to make an argument for raising his Kangaroo Score. But we won't. He would still just be a slightly above average athlete, which doesn't really interest us that much. It's really his statistical production that makes people wonder if Wagenmann might be a bit of a sleeper prospect. While those results are fairly impressive, even if they came against a lower level of competition. we just weren't terribly impressed when we watched him play.
Frank Clark DE, Michigan
Kangaroo Score: 1.498 Agility Score: 1.141 Avg TFL: 12.75
If I was willing to sell you a Ferrari 250 GT, for a quarter of its normal cost (gotta make room in the garage), would you still insist on asking about the bloodstains in the trunk? If the car is cheap enough, maybe you can just tell yourself that those red flakes are rust. Because of his arrest on domestic violence charges, Frank Clark was booted out of Michigan, and we face a similar question. Do you care if he is an asshole, if you can acquire him cheaply? Based on his athletic ability and statistical production, this is a prospect that the computer would typically give a late 3rd round grade to, which is significantly higher than the late round pick most people expect him to be. When we watched him play, we also found him to be an interesting player. He also struck me as a little bit soft in the old melon, so I'm not sure how much I would trust this bozo. While beating women seems to be as fashionable as ever in the NFL, it does seem like the NFL is gradually becoming more wary of blatantly ignoring their employees' criminal tendencies. If I was placing a bet, I'd say that Frank will go undrafted...though someone will quietly sign him eventually. Hooray for having flexible principles!
Shaq Riddick DE, West Virginia
Kangaroo Score: 0.186 Agility Score: 1.294 Avg TFL: 15
Max suggested that we add Riddick to this list, and I thought that seemed like a good idea. Since he is generally projected as just a late round pick, the balance of risk versus reward is rather favorable. His TFL result sort of needs to be taken with a grain of salt, since the bulk of his production came in 2013, when he played at Gardner Webb. Still, I would say that his results at WVU might have been hindered a bit by the way that the team used him. If moved outside, and given a bit more space to operate in, I suspect he might do a pretty good job, so the 3-4 OLB position is probably calling his name. At about 6'6" tall, and 244 pounds, he could stand to add some weight, but I don't really see any reason why he shouldn't be taken as seriously as some of the other high agility pass rushers like Randy Gregory, and I'd probably even commit to saying that I prefer Riddick.
 |
| Finding the right video cable can be tricky. |
It's not entirely the computer's fault. Compared to past years, this crop of pass rushers does appear to be a bit more murky than usual. There are several players with great athletic potential. There are others with proven performance. Unfortunately, there seems to be relatively little overlap between these two groups, and that overlap is the sweet spot that we are normally seeking to find. It's something we talked about when exploring the topic of Explosive Pass Rushers, and served as the basis for a little game where we pitted the computer's imaginary selections against those of some NFL GMs. As things currently stand, we might be tempted to avoid a lot of the more highly touted pass rushing prospects that are available this year.
When we made our list of 3-4 OLB and DE prospects last year,we just felt there was a clearer divide between the players we would take a shot at, and the ones who were likely to disappoint. This year, it feels like there is a lot more of a gray area, and a lot more risk. Player's who we would normally find to be interesting mid-round selections, are being projected to go in the 1st round. One year wonders, players with injury concerns, or unproven athletic potential, are getting pushed higher than we normally feel comfortable with accepting. I keep hearing how this is supposedly a great draft for pass rushers, and though there are a few prospects we really like, we suspect this year could be a bloodbath for a lot of teams, that leaves many people feeling very dissatisfied. Perhaps, worst of all, it just doesn't seem like a great year for finding a huge bargain or undiscovered gem in the later rounds. As more pro day results roll in, our opinion on that might change.
As always, we will list the player's Kangaroo Score (which measures lower body power), and their Agility Score (which comes from the short shuttle drill and the 3-cone drill). The scores are shown in the form of how many standard deviations that a player is above, or below, the average result for a player in their position group. The ideal prospect, in our opinion, would have a Kangaroo Score that is at least one standard deviation above average, at least an average Agility Score, and be averaging about 15 tackles for a loss in his final two college seasons. Of course, in the end, we often have to make some compromises here.
This list will continue to be modified/updated as new data and prospects come to my attention. I don't plan to list every prospect here, but instead will just show the ones that I think are interesting for either good or bad reasons. Last Updated: 4/20/2015
Dante Fowler, DE/OLB, Florida
Kangaroo Score: -0.215 Agility Score: -0.222 Avg TFL: 12.75
While his results from the combine produced rather unexceptional scores, I can't entirely dismiss the possibility that he will succeed. Players like Terrell Suggs and Tamba Hali were both fairly pedestrian athletes, and they have done well for themselves, so it is a possibility. Unfortunately, Suggs and Hali both showed much greater statistical production in their college years, to hint at their potential upside. For the most part, the computer saw nothing terribly interesting in Fowler's production, though there were some signs that he was gradually improving. If he had returned to Florida for his senior year, it is possible that we might have a somewhat higher opinion of him. As things stand, we feel that Fowler presents a high degree of risk, at least for someone who is generally projected to go in the 1st round, and even more so if he is taken in the first 10 picks of the draft.
Vic Beasley, OLB, Clemson
Kangaroo Score: 1.305 Agility Score: 1.192 Avg TFL: 22.25
Well, according to our typical methods for evaluating these things, Beasley does have the athletic traits and statistical production that would merit a 1st round pick. Even when we attempt to factor in the potential benefits of playing alongside Stephone Anthony, Grady Jarrett, and Corey Crawford, his results still remain rather impressive. I suppose that his relatively low number of tackles might raise some concerns, and make him appear to be a Freeney-esque type of player who only goes after the QB (a somewhat legitimate concern), but the positive side of this is that his tackle numbers were largely of the 'solo' variety, with very few assists. Still, he probably isn't the most amazing tackler in the world, or a huge force against the run. We think some of these minor problems might be alleviated by no longer playing DE, and switching to 3-4 OLB, or even as a 4-3 OLB. Whether he can keep the added weight he has recently put on, would have a significant impact on which of these roles he is better suited to play. While some people compare him to Von Miller, which may seem ridiculous, this is probably a more reasonable comparison than the one that some people make to Bruce Irvin, who I think Beasley is vastly superior to. So, in the end, we'll stick with the 1st round grade that the computer gave him.
Randy Gregory, OLB, Nebraska
Kangaroo Score: -0.130 Agility Score: 1.182 Avg TFL: 14.5
I have to admit that I am a bit biased against players like Gregory, though I am trying to keep an open mind. While we prefer pass rushers with greater lower body power, we wouldn't deny that high agility players like Gregory do sometimes produce rather good results. The problem is that they tend to be more of a crap shoot, and their ceiling doesn't tend to be quite as high as their peers with higher Kangaroo Scores. A player like Clay Matthews is sort of the ideal (but unlikely) outcome for a player like this. There also seem to be issues with how to maximize the chances that a player like Gregory can succeed. Like we said when discussing Jason Worilds and Jerry Hughes, giving these types of nimbly toed individuals some space to operate in, might be a requirement. When players like this are asked to directly take on opposing offensive tackles, there's a good chance they are just going to get demolished. While Gregory might do okay as a 3-4 OLB, we think that playing LB in a 4-3 might be even more advantageous. When the computer weighs the athletic potential and statistical production of someone like Randy Gregory, the best we can do is to give him a 3rd round grade. At that point in the draft, his odds of success line up a bit better with the cost of your investment.
Shane Ray, DE/OLB, Missouri
Kangaroo Score: -0.215 Agility Score: -1.327 Avg TFL: 15.75
We're gradually developing a serious distrust of pass rushers from Missouri. It's actually starting to rival our paranoia about prospects from Alabama. In the past year, a total of 4 defensive ends have come out of Missouri (Ray, Golden, Sam, and Ealy), all of whom had rather excellent statistical production, and 2 who were even selected as the SEC defensive player of the year (Ray and Sam). In pretty much every single case, they demonstrated athletic ability that made us wonder if they had just hobbled out of an emergency room. Of these four prospects, Ealy was the only one we could make some argument for, and even then, the computer only thought he was worth a selection in the 4th-6th round range. We're starting to wonder if team's should be looking at Missouri's defensive coordinator rather than the players that this school is cranking out. There is definitely something odd going on here. So, instead of asking whether Ray is worth a top 10 pick, we're going to suggest that he might not be worth drafting at all. Good luck to whoever decides to take him.
Alvin Dupree, DE/OLB, Kentucky
Kangaroo Score: 3.155 Agility Score: -0.896 Avg TFL: 11
This is going to give me an ulcer. I'm probably one of the last people who would want to downplay the importance of good combine results, but in Dupree's case, I think it might be warranted. Look, there is no denying that Dupree has freakish explosiveness. In many ways, he is the exact sort of physical specimen that normally causes me to start drooling, though the initial (and still unofficial) reports from his pro day suggest some potentially worrisome issues with his agility. The problem is that these sorts of measurable traits are only supposed to be ways of gauging a player's potential. Whether a player has the sort of physical advantages that will make the transition to a higher level of competition relatively effortless, is interesting. At the same time, you really would like to see a player with this sort of potential display some evidence of their dominance while in college. It's hard to say that Dupree really accomplished that mission. While Dupree was the primary pass rushing threat at Kentucky, and shouldered his share of the load without much assistance, he never really seemed to have a statistical breakout, and become a terror. On a per snap basis, he disrupted plays behind the line of scrimmage at a reasonable rate, but there was really nothing exceptional about it. He just sort of cruised along for 3 years, being consistently good, but never great, with almost no signs of real statistical progress. We might blame some of this on the poor talent that surrounded him, and the fact that his team frequently was playing from behind. Still, when you are as physically gifted as Dupree appears to be, wouldn't you expect him to be a bit more unstoppable, regardless of his circumstances? When Reilly and I sat down to watch a handful of his games, we came away feeling a bit underwhelmed. While Dupree showed occasional flashes of his ability, it just wasn't enough to set our nipples on fire. Even if we weighed him solely on his best two college seasons, the computer wouldn't let us give him a grade any higher than the 3rd round. At this point, selecting Dupree in the 1st round feels like choosing your wife based solely on the size of her breasts, without ever finding out if she is also good at making sandwiches. Hey, call me a crazy feminist, but it's important to weigh some of these less superficial factors. Because of his freakish athletic abilities, I wouldn't be stunned if he outperforms our expectations, but I wouldn't want to gamble on that. Based on the initial reports from his pro day, and what this might suggest about his agility, I would have to lean towards Dupree being used as a 4-3 DE. Honestly though, I'm perfectly happy with the thought that Dupree will probably be selected well before Team Kangaroo is on the clock, just so I won't be tempted to do something potentially risky.
Owamagbe "Supercalifragilistic" Odighizuwa, DE, UCLA
Kangaroo Score: 1.928 Agility Score: 0.214 Avg TFL: 8.75
Because of the way his results tilt rather strongly towards power over agility, I suspect Odighizuwa is probably better suited to playing defensive end in a 4-3, rather than making any attempt to use him as a 3-4 OLB. It's not that playing 3-4 OLB is an impossibility, it just might not entirely play to his strengths. In the handful of games where we were able to watch him, Reilly and I both found him to be a rather interesting and capable player, and our lying eyeballs probably preferred him to someone like Bud Dupree. While he is a rather interesting athlete, the computer still has some enormous issues with him. Even if we just graded him based on his 2014 performance, the one year when he was a regular starter, his results wouldn't allow us to give him a grade higher than the 4th round. Some of his production issues prior to that point might be excused by missing a significant amount of playing time due to two hip surgeries, but I fail to see how that should make me feel any more comfortable. While hip surgery might be an expected outcome for your grandmother or a German Shepherd, it isn't something we like to see in defensive ends. It wouldn't shock us if Odighizuwa turns out to be a better pro player than he was at the college level, but the possibility that he will be selected in the first 2 rounds strikes me as an insanely unreasonable gamble to take based purely on potential. We kind of see Odigizuwa as one of the bigger wild cards in this years draft. Even if he turns out to be an exceptional player, which he might, that wouldn't change our opinion about the wisdom of taking such a risk.
Eli Harold, OLB, Virginia
Kangaroo Score: 0.137 Agility Score: 0.856 Avg TFL: 14.75
When it comes to athletic ability, Harold has a lot in common with Randy Gregory, though he is perhaps a little bit less explosive. He's fairly agile, but probably not very powerful. Perhaps because of his rather mediocre Kangaroo Score, we seem to see him get easily overpowered by opposing offensive tackles much more than I would hope for, especially when lined up as a defensive end. If he continues to be used primarily as a 3-4 OLB, where he would have a bit more space, he does have some reasonable potential. Based on his athletic traits, and his fairly good statistical production, the computer wouldn't allow us to select him before the 3rd round, which is probably lower than where he will actually be taken. When we eventually end up discussing the other linebacker positions, I think our opinion of him might improve somewhat.
Danielle Hunter, DE, LSU
Kangaroo Score: 0.989 Agility Score: 0.523 Avg TFL: 10.5
The widely varying opinions on where in the draft that Hunter will be selected is kind of comical. Some people (idiots) are suggesting that he should be taken in the 1st round. Others, suggest that he is just a project, and shouldn't be taken until the 5th round. Now, based on his athletic ability, I have to say he is fairly interesting, but overlooking his extremely weak college production isn't something we are inclined to do. While I hate to discuss "technique" because we aren't really qualified to delve into that particular brand of witchcraft, Hunter did convey a sort of 'chicken with his head cut off' vibe, when we watched him play. He truly appeared to have no idea what he was supposed to be doing half of the time. He has interesting athletic potential, but we just view him as a project. Based on our normal criteria, we wouldn't take him until the 5th round.
Hau'oli Kikaha, OLB, Washington
Kangaroo Score: -0.462 Agility Score: 0.101 Avg TFL: 16
When you consider Kikaha's history of torn ACLs, his forty time in the 4.93 second range, and the results listed above, he does become a very troubling prospect. If a team actually selects him somewhere in the first 3 rounds, as people suggest may happen, and things don't work out, the GM who made this selection won't be able to claim that there weren't numerous warning signs.
Nate Orchard, DE, Utah
Kangaroo Score: -0.664 Agility Score: -0.295 Avg TFL: 15
I have to admit that Nate Orchard somewhat annoys me. I kind of liked him as a player, and there was some extremely encouraging data related to his statistical production that I felt was worth pursuing. Unfortunately, his athletic traits would make it impossible for me to take a gamble on him, especially with a pick as high as the 2nd round, which is where he seems to be projected to be taken. Hopefully he will defy the odds, but that's not the sort of bet we like to make.
Mario Edwards, DE/DT, Florida State
Kangaroo Score: 1.018 Agility Score: -0.936 Avg TFL: 10.25
The tricky thing with Edwards, is trying to guess what position he will end up playing. At his current weight of 279 pounds, he could be used as a 4-3 defensive end, or a team could try to bulk him up and turn him into a defensive tackle. For the moment, we're leaning towards the DT option. The scores that we have listed above would be altered rather significantly, depending on this decision, because he has to be compared to a completely different group of athletes, with very different expectations. Based on the little we have seen of him, he really didn't seem nearly as stiff as his Agility Score would have led us to expect. At the same time, he didn't really do anything to blow us away, or make us want to take him in the 2nd-3rd round range, where we frequently see him projected to be selected. He didn't strike us as a bad player, we just have some doubts about how much upside there is here.
Preston Smith, DE, Mississippi St.
Kangaroo Score: 1.005 Agility Score: 0.524 Avg TFL: 10.75
In one of our previous posts, we kicked around the possibility of force feeding Preston Smith cheeseburgers, and turning him into a 3-4 DE. Because of his height (a hair short of 6'5") and arm length (about 34"), we still think that that is our preferred position for Smith. When projected as a 4-3 DE, and compared to a different group of athletes, his results get almost completely flipped around. While his athletic traits provide some fairly wide ranging possibilities as to what position he could play, this potential versatility is a good thing. Unfortunately, when it comes to his statistical production, he was a bit of a late bloomer, and the data gives us some significant reasons to be concerned. The degree to which his production was hindered by playing all along the defensive line, including quite a few snaps at DT, also makes things a bit tricky to judge. Based on our normal criteria, the computer would only allow us to give Smith a 5th round grade. Still, I kind of like Preston Smith, and I've been arguing with Reilly that we should bend the rules a bit because of the numerous ways in which he could be used. I don't necessarily think Smith will become a star, but I suspect he could be a fairly solid player. Personally, I could be tempted to select Smith in the 2nd or 3rd round, which is still later than many people project him to be taken. Reilly, of course, says that I am being an idiot, and is threatening to stop talking to me if we choose Smith with that high of a pick.
Trey Flowers, DE, Arkansas
Kangaroo Score: 1.142 Agility Score: -0.328 Avg TFL: 14.5
The more that we see of Flowers, the more we find ourselves liking him. He just grows on us, like tentacles in Japanese erotica. Based on his athletic ability and production, the computer gave Flowers a 2nd round grade. That's where we run into a problem. We're just not sure if we like him enough to take him that high in the draft. His athletic results, point to him strictly being a 4-3 DE, not that this is a problem. Flowers' sluggish 40-yard time of 4.93 seconds, with a 10-yard split of 1.73 seconds could both be seen as a bit worrisome, and does drop his value a bit for us. In a number of ways, his results kind of remind us of his former teammate Chris Smith, who was drafted in the 5th round in 2013. Compared to Smith, Flowers is probably a slightly better athlete, though their production was really quite similar, even if Smith converted more of his pressures into sacks. To some extent, they are almost clones of each other, with Smith being perhaps a tad quicker and more explosive, and Flowers being a touch more nimble. While Flowers seems to do a number of things rather well, we're not sure if we would say that he is truly amazing in any one area. We're sort of leaning towards the idea that Flowers might become a good solid player, but probably not a star. That's causing us to want to wait a bit. If he fell to the 3rd round, we'd be rather tempted to select him. In the 2nd round, we suspect there will be players at other positions, whose upside might be more tempting.
Za'Darius Smith, DE, Kentucky
Kangaroo Score: -0.118 Agility Score: -1.202 Avg TFL: 7
We don't really see any reason to take Smith seriously, and have no idea why he is projected by some people to be a 3rd round prospect. Still, Za'Darius is a fairly awesome name. Maybe he is a wizard.
Markus Golden, DE, Missouri
Kangaroo Score: -0.957 Agility Score: -0.890 Avg TFL: 16.5
Consider our previously expressed lack of interest in Shane Ray. Now, lower your expectations even further. That is where you will find Markus Golden.
Davis Tull, OLB, Chattanooga
Kangaroo Score: 1.623 Agility Score: ? Avg TFL: 16.5
At this point in time, it seems we will never be able to get the data to calculate Tull's Agility Score, which is a bit frustrating. Normally, I assume that players who avoid doing the short shuttle and 3-cone drill, because of a "pulled hamstring", are bullshitting us in order to avoid an area where they expect to test poorly. Still, he does have that lovely Kangaroo Score to fall back on, and I find myself slightly aroused by the power and explosiveness that it suggests. Now for the bad news. He already has a titanium rod in his leg. He had labrum surgery in March. Then, we have those repeated hamstring injuries, which may or may not exist. We're also just a tiny bit concerned about his stubby 31.25" arms. When you combine all of that with his lower level of competition, you have some reasons to slow the hype train. In the little we have seen of him, we honestly didn't find him to be nearly as terrifying as his numbers might suggest. While Tull has some potential to become a 3-4 OLB, we somewhat wonder if he might fit better as a 4-3 OLB. With the normal deduction we give to players who compete at a lower level, and without the agility data we would like to have, the computer would hesitantly give him a potential 3rd round grade. In reality, we would hedge our bets a bit more. If he was still around in the 5th round, we might be interested.
Kyle Emanuel, OLB, North Dakota St.
Kangaroo Score: 0.201 Agility Score: 0.549 Avg TFL: 21.25
There's really nothing terribly shocking about Emanuel's athletic ability. In most areas he is just a tiny bit above average. On the other hand, his statistical production is something we have to pay attention to. Even though the bulk of his production came in his final year, at which point he was already 23 years old, and against a lower level of competition, you have to take somebody like this somewhat seriously. While he may not possess the sort of athletic gifts that Davis Tull has, I have to admit that I still found him to be a more interesting player to watch. I probably wouldn't pursue him, but he is a curiosity.
Zach Wagenmann DE, Montana St.
Kangaroo Score: -0.309 Agility Score: 0.579 Avg TFL: 19.5
If we adjusted for the rather enormous difference in the results of his vertical jump and his broad jump, we might be able to make an argument for raising his Kangaroo Score. But we won't. He would still just be a slightly above average athlete, which doesn't really interest us that much. It's really his statistical production that makes people wonder if Wagenmann might be a bit of a sleeper prospect. While those results are fairly impressive, even if they came against a lower level of competition. we just weren't terribly impressed when we watched him play.
Frank Clark DE, Michigan
Kangaroo Score: 1.498 Agility Score: 1.141 Avg TFL: 12.75
If I was willing to sell you a Ferrari 250 GT, for a quarter of its normal cost (gotta make room in the garage), would you still insist on asking about the bloodstains in the trunk? If the car is cheap enough, maybe you can just tell yourself that those red flakes are rust. Because of his arrest on domestic violence charges, Frank Clark was booted out of Michigan, and we face a similar question. Do you care if he is an asshole, if you can acquire him cheaply? Based on his athletic ability and statistical production, this is a prospect that the computer would typically give a late 3rd round grade to, which is significantly higher than the late round pick most people expect him to be. When we watched him play, we also found him to be an interesting player. He also struck me as a little bit soft in the old melon, so I'm not sure how much I would trust this bozo. While beating women seems to be as fashionable as ever in the NFL, it does seem like the NFL is gradually becoming more wary of blatantly ignoring their employees' criminal tendencies. If I was placing a bet, I'd say that Frank will go undrafted...though someone will quietly sign him eventually. Hooray for having flexible principles!
Shaq Riddick DE, West Virginia
Kangaroo Score: 0.186 Agility Score: 1.294 Avg TFL: 15
Max suggested that we add Riddick to this list, and I thought that seemed like a good idea. Since he is generally projected as just a late round pick, the balance of risk versus reward is rather favorable. His TFL result sort of needs to be taken with a grain of salt, since the bulk of his production came in 2013, when he played at Gardner Webb. Still, I would say that his results at WVU might have been hindered a bit by the way that the team used him. If moved outside, and given a bit more space to operate in, I suspect he might do a pretty good job, so the 3-4 OLB position is probably calling his name. At about 6'6" tall, and 244 pounds, he could stand to add some weight, but I don't really see any reason why he shouldn't be taken as seriously as some of the other high agility pass rushers like Randy Gregory, and I'd probably even commit to saying that I prefer Riddick.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Perhaps A Lobotomy Would Help?
I've been a bit distracted the past two months, folding paper cranes and writing haikus about sheepdogs, but those are the sorts of things which pay the bills. Regardless, I'm back for the moment for some more deranged ranting about the potential benefits of lobotomizing your favorite NFL team's general manager.
Okay, in the previous post we set the computer up to behave like a bit of an imbecile. We asked it to pick one player per draft class (from 2004-2013), who was between 245 and 285 pounds, based on their known physical traits, and their number of tackles for a loss in college. We were strictly looking at how productive these players were as pass rushers, and chose to use this range of weights because that is where you typically find the majority of the league's 3-4 outside linebackers and 4-3 defensive ends. The computer also couldn't pick anyone who was selected before the 3rd round, or anyone who went undrafted. In the area below, you will find a basic tally of the computer's results for its 10 selections.
POTGP is simply the number of Potential Games Played for a given player. For example, if a player was selected in the 2011 draft then, by the end of the 2013 season, they could have potentially played in 32 games. GP is simply the number of games they actually played. GS is the number of games where they were listed as a starter. Sack/POTGP is their number of sacks per potential game played. % GP is the percentage of 'potential games' in which they players appeared. % GS is the percentage of 'potential games' in which the players were listed as a starter.
I should also mention that the actual average and median draft position of the computer's picks came at the 119th and 115th picks respectively. Also, the computer's overall Sack/POTGP result of 0.227, would be the equivalent of its typical selection generating 3.632 sacks per 16 game season.
To make some comparisons a bit easier, I will list here the average and median results of the computer's selection, when it came to athletic ability, and the average number of tackles for a loss in a player's final two years in college. The Kangaroo Score and Agility Score are given in the form of how many standard deviations that a player is away from the average results for someone in their position group.
Now, we finally get to compare the computer's results to those of a handful of actual NFL teams. To do this, we'll list every player that these teams selected over the same period of time (2004-2013), who fell into the 245-285 pound weight class. We also have to remember that we are only examining how these players performed between the time they were drafted, and the end of the 2013 NFL season. Players who went undrafted, regardless of how they ended up performing, will be left off of these lists. I won't include all 32 teams here, though I will say that the results we are about to show appear to present a pretty typical picture of most NFL teams. For the sake of brevity (Ha!), I will just show a handful of teams that I thought were particularly interesting. If you're curious about some other team's results, feel free to ask, or you can simply do the calculations yourself, since it really isn't that complicated.
We'll start with my favorite team to torment, the Baltimore Ravens.
The Ravens have selected 9 players over this period of time, which is just one player short of what the computer drafted. The average and median draft position of the Ravens' picks would be the 109th and 129th pick. So, the Ravens selected almost the same number of players as the computer did, at roughly a similar point in the draft. Even if we ignore the insane difference in the Ravens' raw sack total compared to the computer, the computer still comes out well ahead in Sack/POTGP. The Ravens' result of 0.091 would be the equivalent of a player producing 1.456 sacks per 16 game season, well below the computer's result of 3.632. A total of 4 of the Ravens' picks (44.44%) came from the first two rounds of the draft, where the computer was barred from making a selection.
I suspect Ravens' fans will argue that including players like Dan Cody and Sergio Kindle in this list is a bit unfair, since injuries kept them from getting on the field. All I can say to that is "Hey, that's life!". Every team on this list faced an equal risk of this occurring, as did the computer. I can also say that while both of these players were fairly productive in college, their measured athletic ability makes the likelihood of them becoming exceptional performers somewhat doubtful. In Cody's case, his 0.187 Kangaroo Score and -0.289 Agility Score paint the picture of a fairly mediocre athlete. With Kindle, we find he has a 0.203 Kangaroo Score and a -0.533 Agility Score, which again are extremely questionable results. You can choose to ignore these factors if you wish to, much like the Ravens did, though the whole point of this exercise is to illustrate how that might be a mistake.
While I have no real problem with the college level statistical production of this group, it seems obvious that actual athletic ability is something the Ravens don't place a lot of value in. Overall, the median athletic ability for their selections was a paltry 0.187 Kangaroo Score, and a -0.289 Agility Score. This means that the team regularly bets on mediocre athletes, and they appear to get mediocre results.
I also seem to run across a lot of Ravens' fans who continue to express high hopes for Courtney Upshaw, despite his extremely limited contributions as a pass rusher. We've discussed Upshaw in the past, so we'll cut to the chase. The main defense that people present for Upshaw, is his supposed quality as a run stopper. I have no interest in debating this, though I tend to view this argument as an attempt to see the silver lining in a bad situation. So, here's a simple test, to see if you truly believe that being "good against the run" is as valuable as being a good pass rusher. How quickly would you trade the one dimensional run stopper, Courtney Upshaw, for a younger but one dimensional pass rusher, like Dwight Freeney?
Now, let's take a look at the Steelers.
Compared to many of the other teams I looked at, the Steelers actually selected relatively few players in the weight class we are examining, just 7 in total. While their combined 77 sacks is well short of the computer's 200, the Steelers actually do better than many teams on a per player basis, with a 0.120 Sack/POTGP. That would give the typical Steelers' draft pick 1.92 sacks in a sixteen game season, which is better than many other team on this list (though well short the computer's average draft pick which produces 3.632 sacks per season). The average and median draft positions of the Steelers picks would be the 105th and 88th pick respectively, which is about half a round higher than where the computer made its selections. A total of 3 of these picks (42.85%) came from the first two rounds of the draft, where the computer was barred from making a pick.
I have no interest in criticizing the Steelers. After all, they have produced better results than many of the NFL teams we'll be looking at, especially when you consider how few selections they made. Still, similar to the previously mentioned Ravens, they also have shown a relative lack of interest in quantifiable athletic ability. The results for their median draft pick were a -0.144 Kangaroo Score and a -0.028 Agility Score, which is clearly very average.
It seems worth noting, however, that almost all of their sack production during this period of time came from two players, LaMarr Woodley and Jason Worilds, who were both taken in the 2nd round (James Harrison is excluded because he wasn't selected in the draft). In case you don't remember, the computer was barred from selecting players who were drafted this highly, so the Steelers had a bit of an advantage in this area. Despite that, I think we can safely say that the computer would have spotted these potential talents rather easily. We've discussed Jason Worilds before, so we'll skip that topic, except to note his 0.604 Kangaroo Score and 0.727 Agility Score, as well as an average of 14.75 TFL in college. As for LaMarr Woodley, his 1.195 Kangaroo Score along with a -0.075 Agility Score would have given him a combined 0.560 Total Score (according to the dumbed down methods the computer was using for this game). When you factor in the 15.25 tackles for a loss that Woodley averaged in his last two years in college, this would have resulted in the computer giving him a 1st round grade, which is slightly higher than where Woodley was actually selected. So, once again, exceptional athleticism, and a history of proven production seem to produce the best results.
Oh, and if you are still expecting Jarvis Jones to emerge as the next great Steeler's pass rusher, the computer would like to reiterate its strong doubts about that.
Now let's move on the the Patriots.
More than almost any team I have looked at so far, the Patriots have selected a lot of players in this weight class, with a total of 12. Despite the abundance of picks that the Patriots have made, their total number of sacks is a horribly embarrassing 49.5. Even if we look at a better measuring stick like Sack/POTGP, their result of 0.063, is still laughably bad. That means their typical player would be producing just 1.008 sacks in a 16 game season. The average and median draft position of these draft picks would come at the 111th pick and 84th pick respectively, which again, is slightly higher than where the computer made its selections. A total of 5 of these picks (41.66%) came from the first 2 rounds of the draft, where the computer was prohibited from making a selection.
Now, unlike a number of the teams in this post, the Patriots' results get a bit skewed. Their apparent preference for larger inside linebackers like Brandon Spikes and Dont'a Hightower, means that some of these players weren't likely to get as many pass rushing opportunities. Still, even if we were to excuse that, it's hard to say that this would radically improve their overall results. The median results for their selections were a very slightly above average 0.335 Kangaroo Score and a 0.301 Agility Score. While these are better results than what we saw from the Ravens and Steelers, it unfortunately coincides with a dip in their typical players number of TFLs in their final two years in college, to a median result of just 10.62 (compared to a more respectable 15.25 for the Ravens, and 15.5 for the Steelers and well below the 16.62 for Team Kangaroo). Obviously, we prefer prospects with great athletic ability and proven performance..
Their player with the highest Sacks/POTGP result, is Chandler Jones. With a result of 0.546, that works out to about 8.73 sacks per 16 game season. When you consider Jones' 0.859 Kangaroo Score, along with a 0.247 Agility Score, you start to see someone with some intriguing athletic ability. When examining his average number of tackles for a loss, during his final two college seasons, we get a result of 11.25 (though we had to adjust this some since he only played 7 games in his final year at Syracuse). While the computer wouldn't have given Jones a 1st round grade, he clearly had some intriguing potential.
So, how has a team like the Patriots managed to survive with so many of their draft picks producing such poor results? Well, they've largely gotten by with a regular supply of mercenary free agent pass rushers. Let's take a look at some of the players they have brought in to fill the void, during this time period.
Well, how about that! They've largely been signing freakishly gifted athletes who were highly productive in college. While some of these players may not have provided exceptional results to their new team, some decline in performance should probably be expected when you are signing players who are going into their 2nd and 3rd NFL contract. Still, it's funny to consider that these players are the ones that drew the Patriots eye in free agency, since they largely fit our mold for successful NFL pass rushers. The only real question is, why don't the Patriots just draft players like this in the first place? If there is one bit of good news, I do think things could potentially turn out quite well for Jamie Collins.
Let's see what a fairly terrible Falcons' defense has done.
Over this period of time, the Falcons have selected 8 players in this weight class. The average and median draft position of these picks came at the 139th and 140th pick, which is noticeably lower than where the computer (or any other team on this list) made its selections. By a fairly large margin, the Falcons selections have produced the lowest number of total sacks, though when we look at Sack/POTGP, they at least manage to rise above the Patriots. Their result of 0.082 would mean their typical pick produces the equivalent of 1.312 sacks in a 16 game season.
Most of the teams we are examining here were chosen due to their on-the-field success, or reputation for having a good defense. I chose to include the Falcons for the complete opposite reason. This isn't to say that there aren't good things about the team, but drafting quality pass rushers hasn't been their strong point during this period of time.
The combination of making slightly fewer picks than the other teams, as well as making them later in the draft, suggests the Falcons really haven't viewed finding a pass rusher as much of a priority. I can also say that the selections they did make almost invariably lacked the combination of athletic ability and college production that would have made them intriguing targets, in the eye's of the computer. The median results for these selections were a 0.041 Kangaroo Score a -0.472 Agility Score, which obviously isn't anything to get excited about. When you also consider their typical players poor median result of just 10 TFLs in their final two college seasons, success seemed quite unlikely. Hey, that's their choice, and none of my business. All I can say is that any complaints people might have about a poor pass rush were probably entirely foreseeable.
As one final note, I realize that Falcons' fans might object to Curtis Lofton being included in this list, since he clearly wasn't intended to be a pass rusher. In the end though, he fell into the weight class that we had selected, so we couldn't exclude him. If it makes any difference, just be glad we didn't include the Falcons' incredibly disappointing selection of Jamaal Anderson, with the 8th overall pick in 2007. Anderson weighed 288 pounds at the combine, which excluded him from this list, and actually slightly improved the overall picture for the Falcons. In the end, I think that sort of balances out including Lofton.
Finally, let's take a look at the Seahawks' defense.
During this period of time the Seahawks have selected a total of 10 players in the weight class we are examining, the same as the computer. The average and median draft position of these picks came at the 119th and 109th picks respectively, which is roughly the same area as where the computer and most of these other teams made their selections. Their Sack/POTGP result of 0.090 would suggest that their typical draft pick produces about 1.44 sacks per 16 game season. A total of 4 of these selections (40%) were chosen in the first two rounds of the draft, where the computer was barred from making a pick.
Despite the solid reputation of the Seahawks defense, their ability to successfully draft pass rushers is rather average to slightly below average, compared to these other teams. Lawrence Jackson, actually ends up being credited with 28.05% of the sacks produced by Seahawks draft picks, though for 2/3 of these sacks Jackson was on another team, as he was only a Seahawk for his first 2 seasons. That leaves only the somewhat mediocre Darryl Tapp and Bruce Irvin as the most productive pass rushers to be selected by the team during this period of time.
Again, the reasons for this apparent failure seem a bit obvious. The median results for these selections would be a -0.007 Kangaroo Score and a 0.172 Agility Score, along with 13.5 TFLs in their final two college seasons. Those are rather uninspiring results, and not surprisingly they produced uninspiring outcomes.
To fill this pass rushing void, the Seahawks have had to look outside the draft, similar to the Patriots. In free agency they acquired Cliff Avril (0.287 Kangaroo Score and a 0.215 Agility Score), who was probably just a slightly above average athlete, though he did average 15 tackles for a loss in his final two years in college, which is quite good. They also managed to pick up Michael Bennett as an undrafted free agent in 2009, and while his average of 9 tackles for a loss in college was fairly pedestrian, his 0.837 Kangaroo Score suggested some reasonable athletic potential (we don't have the data to calculate his Agility Score, unfortunately). They also traded the previously mentioned Darryl Tapp, for the enigmatic Chris Clemons, who's eventual successes I admittedly have no real explanation for.
Let's wrap this up...
I realize that only listing the results for 5 different teams may seem like I have been cherry picking the data a bit. On the other hand, I tend to be a bit long-winded, and I doubt anyone would make it through a post where I did this for every single team. All I can really say is, these teams seemed to do a good job of illustrating my overall point, and really appeared to capture the general problems most teams have in selecting pass rushers. These teams, for the most part, are the norm.
That isn't to say that there aren't teams who have done significantly better. There are. The Giants, the Rams, the Titans, and a few others have done quite a bit better at selecting these sorts of players, though still quite a bit short of the computer's theoretical results. Unfortunately, examining the methods to their success aren't that interesting, as their "hits" typically seem to be the very sort of players that the computer would approve of, the highly athletic freak who was productive in college.
Perhaps the most interesting team I looked at was the Kansas City Chiefs, which was the only team to slightly surpass the computer's results. The combination of selections like Jared Allen, Tamba Hali, and Justin Houston makes up a rather intimidating group of pass rushers. Still, with the possible exception of Tamba Hali, these players also fit the computer's mold for successful players, so I really don't see much for us to learn here, beyond what we already suspected. The Chiefs have simply done a good job.
I'm sure some other people will criticize the amount of attention that I give to a player's ability to generate sacks. To some extent, I suppose that is fair. Almost any statistical category can be a bit overrated. Despite that, I think it is interesting that even if we look beyond sack production, the computer's imaginary picks are still crushing pretty much everyone when it come to %GP and % GS. So, when we simply consider a player's ability to get on the field and play, the computer is doing a much better job there as well.
While some might suspect that the computer had the advantage of hindsight, which is always 20/20, you have to remember that the computer made its selections based only on very basic pieces of data that would have been freely available at the time, so it really had no advantage in this sense. You also have to remember the huge advantage that these NFL teams had, simply by being permitted to select players in the first two rounds of the draft, while the computer was prohibited from doing the same. How much more lopsided do you suspect the computer's results would have been if this restriction had been lifted?
In the end, you can never really eliminate the risk that a player will be a failure. Making any sort of guarantee about how following the path I proposed will assure success would be incredibly stupid. The only real point that I am trying to convey is that, perhaps, if general managers resigned themselves to the likelihood that their instincts for identifying talented players were largely nonsensical beliefs manufactured by their egos, and instead based their decisions on measurable data, they probably couldn't do any worse, and quite possibly would actually improve (I suspect significantly). When you really consider their histories of repeated failures, what is the real risk?
Okay, in the previous post we set the computer up to behave like a bit of an imbecile. We asked it to pick one player per draft class (from 2004-2013), who was between 245 and 285 pounds, based on their known physical traits, and their number of tackles for a loss in college. We were strictly looking at how productive these players were as pass rushers, and chose to use this range of weights because that is where you typically find the majority of the league's 3-4 outside linebackers and 4-3 defensive ends. The computer also couldn't pick anyone who was selected before the 3rd round, or anyone who went undrafted. In the area below, you will find a basic tally of the computer's results for its 10 selections.
| POTGP | GP | GS | Sacks | Sack/POTGP | % GP | % GS | |
| Total | 880 | 635 | 343 | 200 | 0.227 | 72.15 | 38.97 |
POTGP is simply the number of Potential Games Played for a given player. For example, if a player was selected in the 2011 draft then, by the end of the 2013 season, they could have potentially played in 32 games. GP is simply the number of games they actually played. GS is the number of games where they were listed as a starter. Sack/POTGP is their number of sacks per potential game played. % GP is the percentage of 'potential games' in which they players appeared. % GS is the percentage of 'potential games' in which the players were listed as a starter.
I should also mention that the actual average and median draft position of the computer's picks came at the 119th and 115th picks respectively. Also, the computer's overall Sack/POTGP result of 0.227, would be the equivalent of its typical selection generating 3.632 sacks per 16 game season.
To make some comparisons a bit easier, I will list here the average and median results of the computer's selection, when it came to athletic ability, and the average number of tackles for a loss in a player's final two years in college. The Kangaroo Score and Agility Score are given in the form of how many standard deviations that a player is away from the average results for someone in their position group.
| Computer | Avg. TFL | Kangaroo | Agility |
| AVG | 17 | 1.067 | 0.482 |
| MED | 16.625 | 1.279 | 0.664 |
Now, we finally get to compare the computer's results to those of a handful of actual NFL teams. To do this, we'll list every player that these teams selected over the same period of time (2004-2013), who fell into the 245-285 pound weight class. We also have to remember that we are only examining how these players performed between the time they were drafted, and the end of the 2013 NFL season. Players who went undrafted, regardless of how they ended up performing, will be left off of these lists. I won't include all 32 teams here, though I will say that the results we are about to show appear to present a pretty typical picture of most NFL teams. For the sake of brevity (Ha!), I will just show a handful of teams that I thought were particularly interesting. If you're curious about some other team's results, feel free to ask, or you can simply do the calculations yourself, since it really isn't that complicated.
We'll start with my favorite team to torment, the Baltimore Ravens.
| Player | POTGP | GP | GS | Sacks | Sack/POTGP | % GP | % GS |
| John Simon | 16 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43.75 | 0 |
| Courtney Upshaw | 32 | 32 | 22 | 3 | 0.093 | 100 | 68.75 |
| Pernell McPhee | 48 | 44 | 6 | 9.5 | 0.197 | 91.66 | 12.5 |
| Sergio Kindle | 64 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.68 | 0 |
| Paul Kruger | 80 | 67 | 23 | 22 | 0.275 | 83.75 | 28.75 |
| Antwan Barnes | 112 | 83 | 5 | 25.5 | 0.227 | 74.1 | 4.46 |
| Ryan LaCasse | 128 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.37 | 0 |
| Dan Cody | 144 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.38 | 0 |
| Roderick Green | 160 | 54 | 0 | 12 | 0.075 | 33.75 | 0 |
| Total | 784 | 304 | 56 | 72 | 0.091 | 38.77 | 7.14 |
The Ravens have selected 9 players over this period of time, which is just one player short of what the computer drafted. The average and median draft position of the Ravens' picks would be the 109th and 129th pick. So, the Ravens selected almost the same number of players as the computer did, at roughly a similar point in the draft. Even if we ignore the insane difference in the Ravens' raw sack total compared to the computer, the computer still comes out well ahead in Sack/POTGP. The Ravens' result of 0.091 would be the equivalent of a player producing 1.456 sacks per 16 game season, well below the computer's result of 3.632. A total of 4 of the Ravens' picks (44.44%) came from the first two rounds of the draft, where the computer was barred from making a selection.
I suspect Ravens' fans will argue that including players like Dan Cody and Sergio Kindle in this list is a bit unfair, since injuries kept them from getting on the field. All I can say to that is "Hey, that's life!". Every team on this list faced an equal risk of this occurring, as did the computer. I can also say that while both of these players were fairly productive in college, their measured athletic ability makes the likelihood of them becoming exceptional performers somewhat doubtful. In Cody's case, his 0.187 Kangaroo Score and -0.289 Agility Score paint the picture of a fairly mediocre athlete. With Kindle, we find he has a 0.203 Kangaroo Score and a -0.533 Agility Score, which again are extremely questionable results. You can choose to ignore these factors if you wish to, much like the Ravens did, though the whole point of this exercise is to illustrate how that might be a mistake.
While I have no real problem with the college level statistical production of this group, it seems obvious that actual athletic ability is something the Ravens don't place a lot of value in. Overall, the median athletic ability for their selections was a paltry 0.187 Kangaroo Score, and a -0.289 Agility Score. This means that the team regularly bets on mediocre athletes, and they appear to get mediocre results.
I also seem to run across a lot of Ravens' fans who continue to express high hopes for Courtney Upshaw, despite his extremely limited contributions as a pass rusher. We've discussed Upshaw in the past, so we'll cut to the chase. The main defense that people present for Upshaw, is his supposed quality as a run stopper. I have no interest in debating this, though I tend to view this argument as an attempt to see the silver lining in a bad situation. So, here's a simple test, to see if you truly believe that being "good against the run" is as valuable as being a good pass rusher. How quickly would you trade the one dimensional run stopper, Courtney Upshaw, for a younger but one dimensional pass rusher, like Dwight Freeney?
Now, let's take a look at the Steelers.
| Player | POTGP | GP | GS | Sacks | Sack/POTGP | % GP | % GS |
| Jarvis Jones | 16 | 14 | 8 | 1 | 0.062 | 87.5 | 50 |
| Chris Carter | 48 | 29 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 60.41 | 8.33 |
| Jason Worilds | 64 | 57 | 21 | 19 | 0.296 | 89.06 | 32.81 |
| Bruce Davis | 96 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.62 | 0 |
| LaMarr Woodley | 112 | 94 | 81 | 57 | 0.508 | 83.91 | 72.32 |
| Shaun Nua | 144 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nathaniel Adibi | 160 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 640 | 209 | 114 | 77 | 0.120 | 32.65 | 17.81 |
Compared to many of the other teams I looked at, the Steelers actually selected relatively few players in the weight class we are examining, just 7 in total. While their combined 77 sacks is well short of the computer's 200, the Steelers actually do better than many teams on a per player basis, with a 0.120 Sack/POTGP. That would give the typical Steelers' draft pick 1.92 sacks in a sixteen game season, which is better than many other team on this list (though well short the computer's average draft pick which produces 3.632 sacks per season). The average and median draft positions of the Steelers picks would be the 105th and 88th pick respectively, which is about half a round higher than where the computer made its selections. A total of 3 of these picks (42.85%) came from the first two rounds of the draft, where the computer was barred from making a pick.
I have no interest in criticizing the Steelers. After all, they have produced better results than many of the NFL teams we'll be looking at, especially when you consider how few selections they made. Still, similar to the previously mentioned Ravens, they also have shown a relative lack of interest in quantifiable athletic ability. The results for their median draft pick were a -0.144 Kangaroo Score and a -0.028 Agility Score, which is clearly very average.
It seems worth noting, however, that almost all of their sack production during this period of time came from two players, LaMarr Woodley and Jason Worilds, who were both taken in the 2nd round (James Harrison is excluded because he wasn't selected in the draft). In case you don't remember, the computer was barred from selecting players who were drafted this highly, so the Steelers had a bit of an advantage in this area. Despite that, I think we can safely say that the computer would have spotted these potential talents rather easily. We've discussed Jason Worilds before, so we'll skip that topic, except to note his 0.604 Kangaroo Score and 0.727 Agility Score, as well as an average of 14.75 TFL in college. As for LaMarr Woodley, his 1.195 Kangaroo Score along with a -0.075 Agility Score would have given him a combined 0.560 Total Score (according to the dumbed down methods the computer was using for this game). When you factor in the 15.25 tackles for a loss that Woodley averaged in his last two years in college, this would have resulted in the computer giving him a 1st round grade, which is slightly higher than where Woodley was actually selected. So, once again, exceptional athleticism, and a history of proven production seem to produce the best results.
Oh, and if you are still expecting Jarvis Jones to emerge as the next great Steeler's pass rusher, the computer would like to reiterate its strong doubts about that.
Now let's move on the the Patriots.
| Player | POTGP | GP | GS | Sacks | Sack/POTGP | % GP | % GS |
| Jamie Collins | 16 | 16 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 50 |
| Michael Buchanan | 16 | 15 | 0 | 2 | 0.125 | 93.75 | 0 |
| Chandler Jones | 32 | 30 | 29 | 17.5 | 0.546 | 93.75 | 90.62 |
| Dont'a Hightower | 32 | 30 | 27 | 5 | 0.156 | 93.75 | 84.37 |
| Jake Bequette | 32 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 |
| Markell Carter | 48 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jerm. Cunningham | 64 | 38 | 14 | 3.5 | 0.054 | 59.37 | 21.87 |
| Brandon Spikes | 64 | 51 | 39 | 1 | 0.015 | 79.68 | 60.93 |
| Shawn Crable | 96 | 6 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.005 | 6.25 | 0 |
| Justin Rogers | 112 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28.57 | 0 |
| Jeremy Mincey | 128 | 66 | 40 | 20 | 0.156 | 51.56 | 31.25 |
| Ryan Claridge | 144 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 784 | 292 | 157 | 49.5 | 0.063 | 37.24 | 20.02 |
More than almost any team I have looked at so far, the Patriots have selected a lot of players in this weight class, with a total of 12. Despite the abundance of picks that the Patriots have made, their total number of sacks is a horribly embarrassing 49.5. Even if we look at a better measuring stick like Sack/POTGP, their result of 0.063, is still laughably bad. That means their typical player would be producing just 1.008 sacks in a 16 game season. The average and median draft position of these draft picks would come at the 111th pick and 84th pick respectively, which again, is slightly higher than where the computer made its selections. A total of 5 of these picks (41.66%) came from the first 2 rounds of the draft, where the computer was prohibited from making a selection.
Now, unlike a number of the teams in this post, the Patriots' results get a bit skewed. Their apparent preference for larger inside linebackers like Brandon Spikes and Dont'a Hightower, means that some of these players weren't likely to get as many pass rushing opportunities. Still, even if we were to excuse that, it's hard to say that this would radically improve their overall results. The median results for their selections were a very slightly above average 0.335 Kangaroo Score and a 0.301 Agility Score. While these are better results than what we saw from the Ravens and Steelers, it unfortunately coincides with a dip in their typical players number of TFLs in their final two years in college, to a median result of just 10.62 (compared to a more respectable 15.25 for the Ravens, and 15.5 for the Steelers and well below the 16.62 for Team Kangaroo). Obviously, we prefer prospects with great athletic ability and proven performance..
Their player with the highest Sacks/POTGP result, is Chandler Jones. With a result of 0.546, that works out to about 8.73 sacks per 16 game season. When you consider Jones' 0.859 Kangaroo Score, along with a 0.247 Agility Score, you start to see someone with some intriguing athletic ability. When examining his average number of tackles for a loss, during his final two college seasons, we get a result of 11.25 (though we had to adjust this some since he only played 7 games in his final year at Syracuse). While the computer wouldn't have given Jones a 1st round grade, he clearly had some intriguing potential.
So, how has a team like the Patriots managed to survive with so many of their draft picks producing such poor results? Well, they've largely gotten by with a regular supply of mercenary free agent pass rushers. Let's take a look at some of the players they have brought in to fill the void, during this time period.
| Player | Kangaroo | Agility | Avg. TFL |
| Rob Ninkovich | 0.267 | 1.013 | 13.25 |
| Andre Carter | 1.230 | 0.577 | 19.5 |
| Mark Anderson | 1.344 | 0.846 | 12.5 |
| Derrick Burgess | 1.802 | N/A | N/A |
| Adalius Thomas | 1.573 | -0.306 | 18 |
Well, how about that! They've largely been signing freakishly gifted athletes who were highly productive in college. While some of these players may not have provided exceptional results to their new team, some decline in performance should probably be expected when you are signing players who are going into their 2nd and 3rd NFL contract. Still, it's funny to consider that these players are the ones that drew the Patriots eye in free agency, since they largely fit our mold for successful NFL pass rushers. The only real question is, why don't the Patriots just draft players like this in the first place? If there is one bit of good news, I do think things could potentially turn out quite well for Jamie Collins.
Let's see what a fairly terrible Falcons' defense has done.
| Player | POTGP | GP | GS | Sacks | Sack/POTGP | % GP | % GS |
| Malliciah Goodman | 16 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 87.5 | 6.25 |
| Stansly Maponga | 16 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 0 |
| Jon Massaquoi | 32 | 24 | 4 | 4 | 0.125 | 75 | 12.5 |
| Cliff Matthews | 48 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 52.08 | 0 |
| Lawrence Sidbury | 80 | 48 | 0 | 5 | 0.062 | 60 | 0 |
| Curtis Lofton | 96 | 96 | 95 | 7 | 0.072 | 100 | 98.95 |
| Kroy Biermann | 96 | 82 | 22 | 16.5 | 0.171 | 85.41 | 22.91 |
| Chauncey Davis | 144 | 102 | 25 | 11 | 0.076 | 80.83 | 17.36 |
| Total | 528 | 403 | 147 | 43.5 | 0.082 | 76.32 | 27.84 |
Over this period of time, the Falcons have selected 8 players in this weight class. The average and median draft position of these picks came at the 139th and 140th pick, which is noticeably lower than where the computer (or any other team on this list) made its selections. By a fairly large margin, the Falcons selections have produced the lowest number of total sacks, though when we look at Sack/POTGP, they at least manage to rise above the Patriots. Their result of 0.082 would mean their typical pick produces the equivalent of 1.312 sacks in a 16 game season.
Most of the teams we are examining here were chosen due to their on-the-field success, or reputation for having a good defense. I chose to include the Falcons for the complete opposite reason. This isn't to say that there aren't good things about the team, but drafting quality pass rushers hasn't been their strong point during this period of time.
The combination of making slightly fewer picks than the other teams, as well as making them later in the draft, suggests the Falcons really haven't viewed finding a pass rusher as much of a priority. I can also say that the selections they did make almost invariably lacked the combination of athletic ability and college production that would have made them intriguing targets, in the eye's of the computer. The median results for these selections were a 0.041 Kangaroo Score a -0.472 Agility Score, which obviously isn't anything to get excited about. When you also consider their typical players poor median result of just 10 TFLs in their final two college seasons, success seemed quite unlikely. Hey, that's their choice, and none of my business. All I can say is that any complaints people might have about a poor pass rush were probably entirely foreseeable.
As one final note, I realize that Falcons' fans might object to Curtis Lofton being included in this list, since he clearly wasn't intended to be a pass rusher. In the end though, he fell into the weight class that we had selected, so we couldn't exclude him. If it makes any difference, just be glad we didn't include the Falcons' incredibly disappointing selection of Jamaal Anderson, with the 8th overall pick in 2007. Anderson weighed 288 pounds at the combine, which excluded him from this list, and actually slightly improved the overall picture for the Falcons. In the end, I think that sort of balances out including Lofton.
Finally, let's take a look at the Seahawks' defense.
| Player | POTGP | GP | GS | Sacks | Sack/POTGP | % GP | % GS |
| Ty Powell | 16 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31.25 | 0 |
| Bruce Irvin | 32 | 28 | 12 | 10 | 0.312 | 87.5 | 37.5 |
| Greg Scruggs | 32 | 11 | 0 | 2 | 0.062 | 34.37 | 0 |
| K.J. Wright | 48 | 44 | 40 | 4.5 | 0.093 | 91.66 | 83.33 |
| Aaron Curry | 80 | 48 | 39 | 5.5 | 0.068 | 60 | 48.75 |
| Nick Reed | 80 | 26 | 0 | 1 | 0.012 | 32.5 | 0 |
| Lawrence Jackson | 96 | 69 | 24 | 19.5 | 0.203 | 71.87 | 25 |
| Baraka Atkins | 112 | 21 | 0 | 2 | 0.017 | 18.75 | 0 |
| Darryl Tapp | 128 | 114 | 35 | 25 | 0.195 | 89.06 | 27.34 |
| Jeb Huckeba | 144 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 768 | 366 | 150 | 69.5 | 0.090 | 47.65 | 19.53 |
During this period of time the Seahawks have selected a total of 10 players in the weight class we are examining, the same as the computer. The average and median draft position of these picks came at the 119th and 109th picks respectively, which is roughly the same area as where the computer and most of these other teams made their selections. Their Sack/POTGP result of 0.090 would suggest that their typical draft pick produces about 1.44 sacks per 16 game season. A total of 4 of these selections (40%) were chosen in the first two rounds of the draft, where the computer was barred from making a pick.
Despite the solid reputation of the Seahawks defense, their ability to successfully draft pass rushers is rather average to slightly below average, compared to these other teams. Lawrence Jackson, actually ends up being credited with 28.05% of the sacks produced by Seahawks draft picks, though for 2/3 of these sacks Jackson was on another team, as he was only a Seahawk for his first 2 seasons. That leaves only the somewhat mediocre Darryl Tapp and Bruce Irvin as the most productive pass rushers to be selected by the team during this period of time.
Again, the reasons for this apparent failure seem a bit obvious. The median results for these selections would be a -0.007 Kangaroo Score and a 0.172 Agility Score, along with 13.5 TFLs in their final two college seasons. Those are rather uninspiring results, and not surprisingly they produced uninspiring outcomes.
To fill this pass rushing void, the Seahawks have had to look outside the draft, similar to the Patriots. In free agency they acquired Cliff Avril (0.287 Kangaroo Score and a 0.215 Agility Score), who was probably just a slightly above average athlete, though he did average 15 tackles for a loss in his final two years in college, which is quite good. They also managed to pick up Michael Bennett as an undrafted free agent in 2009, and while his average of 9 tackles for a loss in college was fairly pedestrian, his 0.837 Kangaroo Score suggested some reasonable athletic potential (we don't have the data to calculate his Agility Score, unfortunately). They also traded the previously mentioned Darryl Tapp, for the enigmatic Chris Clemons, who's eventual successes I admittedly have no real explanation for.
Let's wrap this up...
I realize that only listing the results for 5 different teams may seem like I have been cherry picking the data a bit. On the other hand, I tend to be a bit long-winded, and I doubt anyone would make it through a post where I did this for every single team. All I can really say is, these teams seemed to do a good job of illustrating my overall point, and really appeared to capture the general problems most teams have in selecting pass rushers. These teams, for the most part, are the norm.
That isn't to say that there aren't teams who have done significantly better. There are. The Giants, the Rams, the Titans, and a few others have done quite a bit better at selecting these sorts of players, though still quite a bit short of the computer's theoretical results. Unfortunately, examining the methods to their success aren't that interesting, as their "hits" typically seem to be the very sort of players that the computer would approve of, the highly athletic freak who was productive in college.
Perhaps the most interesting team I looked at was the Kansas City Chiefs, which was the only team to slightly surpass the computer's results. The combination of selections like Jared Allen, Tamba Hali, and Justin Houston makes up a rather intimidating group of pass rushers. Still, with the possible exception of Tamba Hali, these players also fit the computer's mold for successful players, so I really don't see much for us to learn here, beyond what we already suspected. The Chiefs have simply done a good job.
I'm sure some other people will criticize the amount of attention that I give to a player's ability to generate sacks. To some extent, I suppose that is fair. Almost any statistical category can be a bit overrated. Despite that, I think it is interesting that even if we look beyond sack production, the computer's imaginary picks are still crushing pretty much everyone when it come to %GP and % GS. So, when we simply consider a player's ability to get on the field and play, the computer is doing a much better job there as well.
While some might suspect that the computer had the advantage of hindsight, which is always 20/20, you have to remember that the computer made its selections based only on very basic pieces of data that would have been freely available at the time, so it really had no advantage in this sense. You also have to remember the huge advantage that these NFL teams had, simply by being permitted to select players in the first two rounds of the draft, while the computer was prohibited from doing the same. How much more lopsided do you suspect the computer's results would have been if this restriction had been lifted?
In the end, you can never really eliminate the risk that a player will be a failure. Making any sort of guarantee about how following the path I proposed will assure success would be incredibly stupid. The only real point that I am trying to convey is that, perhaps, if general managers resigned themselves to the likelihood that their instincts for identifying talented players were largely nonsensical beliefs manufactured by their egos, and instead based their decisions on measurable data, they probably couldn't do any worse, and quite possibly would actually improve (I suspect significantly). When you really consider their histories of repeated failures, what is the real risk?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)